We need to restore nature, but integrity matters with carbon offsetting. It must actually do something.

To meet “net zero” we need to be pulling huge quantities of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.?Carbon offsets are used to abate emissions. The problem is that to be meaningful they actually have to work.?It’s estimated that up to 80% of the carbon credits sold in Australia do not make a difference. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-24/insider-blows-whistle-on-greenhouse-gas-reduction-schemes/100933186

This is substantially up from previous reports of up to 25% being junk credits. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/serious-integrity-concerns-around-australias-junk-carbon-credits/

>> How it should work

A carbon offset scheme doing its job, would be rehabilitating previously degraded farmland back to full biodiverse ecological service function.?It would need to be managed for up to a century to allow the forest o reach full ecosystem balance, and lock up the carbon in plants and soil. The new trees would pull CO2 out of the atmosphere. You could demonstrate it was happening with a satellite image. ?Full verification would be with ground truthing.

Another carbon farming apporach involves building up the soil carbon through regenerative agriculture. This removes the use of artificial ammonium nitrate fertiliser that not only kills essential microorganisms, but releases nitrous oxide NO2 – a greenhouse gas 300x more potent than CO2.?Maximising photosynthetic cover pulls CO2 out of the atmospheres and builds up soil carbon. A win-win as high carbon soils retain more moisture and build drought resilience. ?Much harder to measure and verify without expensive testing.?See Charles Massey on Australian Story on ABC: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-28/charlie-massy-regenerative-farming-movement/12438352

>> High Carbon price drives change

Many people would be surprised that Australia has a price on carbon.

A high carbon price is important.?Its costs money to manage a forest for a century. ?A high price provides polluters greater incentive to reduce emission to avoid offsetting. ??The Government kept the prices low – around $12-15/tonne by a reverse auction process for the Emissions Reductions Fund. ??The Australian taxpayer buys these credits (so much for “not taxes”). Due to growing demand from the private sector there is also voluntary carbon market and the carbon price was as high as $55 tonne last month and was rising.

However, the government without consultation unilaterally changed the rules recently. This sent the price plummeting and gifted carbon aggregators billions of dollars, at an estimated $3B+ loss to the taxpayer. This essentially made it cheaper and easier for big fossil fuel polluters to keep polluting. ?https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2022/03/19/angus-taylors-35-billion-carbon-blunder/164760840013513#hrd

Essentially this change it allowed them to break contracts and resell on the open market. So imagine, you are a property developer and sell an apartment for $1M. ?They are now worth $5M.?But the government allows you to boot the owners out so you can resell it at $5M. Crude analogy but you get the idea. A lot of people would be upset.

>> Dodgy credits and claims of fraud

So to make a difference a credit has to actually make a reduction in CO2 or other Greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.?This is described in the industry as “additional”. It has to be in addition to what is already happening.??So the problems arise when farmers are paid to not cut down forests they had?a clearing permit for, but they never intended to cut down anyway. Money for old rope.

The next problem is called “leakage”. That is where land is protected in one place but removed somewhere else.?So take the farmer that got paid millions of dollars to not cut down trees on a poor part of his property, buys the property next door with the carbon money and cuts it down. See ABC story here. In the story carbon farmer Peter Yench proudly points out a wide expanse of cleared paddocks carpeted with flowering native grasses. "Looks good doesn't it. Done that with carbon money! Then laughs. https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/boom-time-in-carbon-farming-country/13637436

Credits also provide money for “human induced afforestation”.?This is where stock are excluded from land and natural regeneration occurs as the new seedlings are not grazed. Sounds good. The problem is that the vast majority of these projects are not in what most of us think of as forest, but in arid mallee country in the inland.?The scientist argue here that it is actually rainfall that makes the biggest difference. Trees grow and put on carbon when it is wetter. When it returns to dry / drought, the scrub dies back and the CO2 is release back into the atmosphere.

This map shows?project boundaries for "active" projects registered under the Human-Induced Regeneration of a Permanent Even-Aged Native Forest scheme. (Via ABC - Supplied: Don Butler)

>> A price on carbon for polluters is essential

The fundamental problem is that we don’t apply the carbon price to the big fossil fuel polluters. It was never a tax. A tax is something you can’t avoid. A carbon price forces behaviour change to be less polluting, as it costs too much. Sadly this was weaponised by Tony Abbott and we can’t seem to shake the fact that it is NOT a tax.

A final point. Nature based credits can’t offset fossil fuels but restoring nature is essential.?About 10% of historical emissions have been from land clearing. 90% is from the burning of fossil fuels. In a big picture scenario, we need to replace as much of that lost forest as possible.?Nature based solutions are essential as we critically need to restore nature. But they can’t offset fossil fuels, we are just burning far too much.

>> Good credits can be found

There are many very good schemes out there and I would encourage people interested in offsetting their historical emissions and do their own due diligence. Look for credits that demonstrate clear environmental benefits like reafforestation and biodiversity improvements (not monocultures) and social benefits like Indigenous employment.?

AILA is preparing a document specifically to guide landscape architectural practices through the carbon offset will be released shortly after final review. https://www.aila.org.au/Web/Values/Climate-Positive-Design/Web/Values/Climate-Positive-Design.aspx?hkey=ac23708a-2fdf-4f4b-96d5-8a29f183543e