Open letter from 90 academics to European governments – carbon offset markets (eg. CORSIA) will not effectively cut carbon

There is an interesting letter from 90 academics calling for governments to withdraw support from new carbon offset markets – with a specific reference to the UN Corsia scheme for aviation emissions. The academics call on European governments that care about climate change to withdraw their support for the creation of a new doomed carbon offset market at the COP25 this December. The proposals for carbon offsets are entirely unable to meet necessary criteria, needed to ensure they actually succeed in “offsetting” carbon. The letter says: “Yet, beyond the well-known issues of excess permits and frauds, it has also been demonstrated that carbon markets have major conceptual flaws that cannot be fixed, such as the inability to provide a reliable price signal or the fact that the climate impact of offset projects is not calculable….It is well documented that carbon markets have failed spectacularly in achieving their environmental objectives and that many carbon offset projects have a devastating social impact. In spite of this evidence, carbon markets remain the main policy tool to address climate change in Europe, based on the misguided hope that they will work “once the price is right”.”
.

Open letter to European governments – carbon markets will not make our planet great again

Addressing climate change requires sound environmental policies, not more failed carbon markets

90 academics have signed an open letter calling on European governments caring about climate change to withdraw their support for the creation of a new doomed carbon offset market at the COP25 this December.

Download open letter: open letter to European policy makers on carbon markets

(to see the whole list of academics who signed. Letter text copied below)

” Yet, new carbon markets are being created such as CORSIA, the carbon offset market for civil aviation emissions, or the one mooted under article 6 of the UN Paris Agreement to be finalised at COP25.

These irremediable issues mean that carbon markets will never be able to meet their environmental and social objectives and should be abandoned for more robust alternatives. “

The open letter:

March 2019

CARBON MARKETS WILL NOT MAKE OUR PLANET GREAT AGAIN

Addressing climate change requires sound environmental policies, not more failed carbon markets.
It is well documented that carbon markets have failed spectacularly in achieving their environmental objectives and that many carbon offset projects have a devastating social impact. In spite of this evidence, carbon markets remain the main policy tool to address climate change in Europe, based on the misguided hope that they will work “once the price is right”.
Yet, beyond the well-known issues of excess permits and frauds, it has also been demonstrated that carbon markets have major conceptual flaws that cannot be fixed, such as the inability to provide a reliable price signal or the fact that the climate impact of offset projects is not calculable.
When carbon becomes a new asset class for investors, carbon markets will be much more vulnerable than traditional financial markets to crashes and abrupt losses of confidence from investors, with a high risk of contagion to other asset classes and the wider economy.
Yet, new carbon markets are being created such as CORSIA, the carbon offset market for civil aviation emissions, or the one mooted under article 6 of the UN Paris Agreement to be finalised at COP25.
These irremediable issues mean that carbon markets will never be able to meet their environmental and social objectives and should be abandoned for more robust alternatives.
Mandating a progressive phasing out from fossil fuels complemented by targeted tax policies aimed at ensuring a fair sharing of the costs of a transition away from fossil fuel dependence would be far simpler, fairer and incomparably more effective in addressing climate change.
Binding regulations have proven their effectiveness time and again, notably to address the hole in the ozone layer, prevent river pollution by effluents or reduce lead emissions from cars. Such a plan would of course be progressive and would mean finally starting to act, instead of continuing with the current inaction fostered by carbon markets.
Binding environmental regulations would also incidentally make finance sustainable with regards to climate change, as the risk-adjusted returns of all companies and economic activities would automatically adjust to the new regulations and capital would shift accordingly.
In turn, this questions the current political focus softening financial regulation in exchange for a greening of bank balance sheets.
As carbon markets continue to prove their ineffectiveness while the incidence and amplitude of natural catastrophes increase and renewable energy prices continue to drop, public pressure is likely to make the current focus on carbon markets, as the central pillar of EU climate policy, gradually become politically untenable. Wasting another decade would only make the transition more abrupt with a far worse impact on climate and jobs.
We therefore call on policy makers to stop supporting new doomed carbon offset markets, notably at the COP25.
.
For more information read : ‘50 shades of green – the rise of natural capital markets and sustainable finance’
available at  www.greenfinanceobservatory.org
.

See earlier:

An assessment by Carbon Market Watch of credit providers for the aviation offsetting scheme

Carbon Market Watch has produced a report that assesses credit providers for the ICAO CORSIA carbon offsetting scheme – which aims to compensate the growth in CO2 emissions from international aviation above 2020 levels, starting in 2021. Offsets should ” offset programs will be screened against the eleven new Program Design Elements,” (one of which, for example, is: “Program Governance: Programs should publicly disclose who is responsible for administration of the program and how decisions are made.”   Carbon Market Watch conclude that “no program can yet operate in a manner which complies with all the eligibility criteria. Some will need to update and improve certain parts of their protocols or methodologies, but all are hampered by the lack of clarity on international accounting rules to avoid double counting of emission reductions. The present assessment also highlights that the Program Design Elements are not sufficient to exclude credits with no environmental value, and that a rigorous application of the second set of criteria, the Carbon Offset Credit Integrity Assessment Criteria, is necessary and will require analysis of specific methodologies and projects.”

Click here to view full story…

ICAO working on rules to at least ensure its CORSIA carbon credits for aviation are not double-counted

Rules to avoid double-counting of CO2 emissions cuts in offsets to be used by the aviation sector through the (weak, ineffective) ICAO CORSIA scheme, are considered to be a step forward by some campaigners. But proper assurances are needed to meet aviation’s climate pledges, so the claims of (sic) “carbon neutral growth” mean something. ICAO negotiators have agreed rules to prevent double-counting of carbon credits used to offset airline emissions.  As air traffic growth outpaces efficiency improvements, airlines will be expected to pay for emissions reductions in other sectors to offset the climate impact. In one of its secretive meetings, ICAO has adopted broad criteria to ensure those carbon offsets are not also counted towards national targets – and they actually represent extra CO2 emissions savings. Campaigners are also calling for an age limit on eligible carbon offsetting projects and transparency around the way the rules are put into practice.  There is a huge pool of dormant projects under the UN’s CDM that could, in theory, meet demand from airlines for carbon offsets. But most of those would continue cutting emissions, even without being used by aviation. So they are not additional.

Click here to view full story…

Study confirms that relying on outdated CDM carbon credits to compensate aviation emissions will do nothing for climate action

The UN’s new, very weak, scheme to attempt to do something about global aviation CO2 emissions is starting soon. It is the “Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation” (CORSIA). Countries have been trying to locate cheap, plentiful carbon credits that airlines can use. The process is secretive. One type of carbon credit being considered comes from the CDM, (Clean Development Mechanism) a carbon market established under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to allow rich countries to meet their climate targets at a cheaper cost. This climate tool has generated a lot of controversy around its failure to reduce emissions, as well as negative impacts it has had on local communities and the environment. The problem is that there is a huge supply of “junk” CDM credits, far larger than the amount aviation would need. These junk credits are often from projects to cut CO2 emissions which would happen anyway. If these junk credits are the ones the aviation sector uses, the effect would be an increase in global CO2.  There is also the problem that while all credits are far too cheap to be effective, the junk ones are even cheaper – so not costing airlines enough to in any way be an incentive to limit their CO2 emissions.

Click here to view full story…

.

.
.
.