A few weeks ago I wrote about problem of casually promised offsets in a world with limited land. Corporations and governments rely on carbon offsetting in order to meet climate targets, and if we add up all the pledged offsets so far, it’s very obvious that it is impossible to deliver them all. Where will these forests go, exactly?
The area of land needed to deliver all these offsets is now equivalent to all the world’s agriculture, and potentially risks competing with it. Who gets access to land when there isn’t enough to go around?
The richest do, of course.
For an example, consider Blue Carbon, a Dubai-based offsets company. Cheerfully boasting of their ‘disruptive’ business, they describe their services as securing environmental assets and investing in nature-based climate solutions. They are in talks with Zambia, Angola, Tanzania and Liberia, and it’s in the latter that they appear closest to making a deal.
Under current proposals, the company will take charge of 10% of Liberia’s territory and almost a million hectares of forest. This would give the UAE ‘pollution rights’ equivalent to that forest’s carbon drawdown, and claim that as offsets against Emirati oil and gas production. As Le Monde report, this is all being negotiated in secret, possibly for a big unveiling when the UAE hosts COP28 later this year.
As it’s not being negotiated as part of a transparent process, there are a whole host of concerns about this deal. What does it mean for people who live in the area? What about local land ownership? How are forest communities being consulted? What compensation is being offered and who will it go to? Will the deal respect Liberia’s existing laws about access to forests and use of forest products? As opposition parties have been pointing out, the size of the deal is practically impossible to deliver legally. The forest action group FERN describe how a similar deal with a UK based carbon offsets fell through because it was found to be illegal, and that only planned for 400,000 hectares.
Now, perhaps I have it all wrong, and this is a benign and beneficial scheme that will see millions of dollars of new funding flow to an economically disadvantaged region. The whole story has been under-reported outside of Africa, so it’s hard to get a good sense of the context and the implications. But if intentions are good all round, then why the secrecy?
Given the over-promising of offsets, there are going to be more stories like this one. Similar to the land-leasing deals we’ve seen for food or biofuels in the last few years, there’s going to be a land grab for offsets. Rich countries and corporations are going to need vast areas of forest, or degraded land to regenerate. Poorer regions will be offered a lot of money for this land.
This is not straight-forward, and to stand in the way of developing countries doing land deals would be equally meddlesome. Negotiating offset rights is something that should be done carefully and well, rather than not done at all. It should be done transparently, in partnership, and with the full participation of local communities.
And, of course, it should be done as little as possible. We cannot offset our way to sustainability. However unpalatable it may be to the likes of the UAE or the governments of Norway or the UK, we have to move beyond oil and gas. We have to reduce emissions. We cannot allow the richest to buy their way to a token net zero while continuing to profit from the fossil fuels that are destroying a stable climate.
The Earthbound Report 
Well written. Are you sharing these pieces with your MP’s? Hope so. We in Citizens Climate Lobby in the U.S. have found that sharing published advocacy pieces by constituents with our representatives in Congress and at the local level seems to be an effective strategy for helping them craft appropriate legislation. Thank you again for a great read.
Not on a regular basis, no, as I tend to write things a bit too often to bombard my MP with them. But I should do it more often, thanks for the reminder!
You already do a lot! Maybe one of your British readers will start doing it. PM Sunak apparently needs some prodding to avoid paying ecocide charges later.
A good point I’ve often wondered about. Is there much mileage in creating new land such as (as you’ve written about before) solar power in desert regions which encourages new green growth underneath? Would the desert land mass provide enough needed for carbon offset?
Yes, restoring deserts is a major opportunity – though it is a very slow process and wouldn’t be able to absorb significant carbon emissions for decades. Renewable energy in the desert might qualify as an offset in some circumstances.
The other big opportunity is offsets at sea. Seaweed absorbs more carbon than trees and there’s no shortage of ocean!