Research confirms:Big companies' reforestation projects are a scam

A new one research revealed that carbon credits from reforestation projects they don't compensate most of the emissions released by industrial activities.An international group of scientists, in particular, examined 26 sites where so-called REDD+ projects to combat deforestation were implemented on three different continents.The main doubt, it emerged, is how developers calculate the impact of their projects, to the point that around 94% of the carbon credits deriving from these it would not represent a real mitigation of climate-changing emissions.

REDD+ is short for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries.The idea is that the "monetization" of threatened forests through the issuance of carbon credits helps to avoid further increase in global temperature.In turn, the sale of these credits should generate an income stream to reinvest in forest conservation, which advocates say is critical to protecting not only the carbon that biomass contains, but also other ecosystem services, biodiversity and vital resources.These projects fall within the broader context of the carbon market, the system designed to offset industrial emissions through carbon trading, the so-called credits.To put it simply, those who emit more than they should are forced to purchase the latter from more virtuous companies, farmers or, precisely, from mitigation projects.

However, whether this system actually translates into a reduction in emissions is far from certain.For example, it is not easy to guarantee that each credit sold is actually equivalent to one metric ton of carbon dioxide that would have been released into the atmosphere. if there had not been the project.The problem – the researchers explain – is that this is precisely the method by which the effectiveness of a given intervention is calculated.Different algorithms could then lead to very variable conclusions and this could also lead to estimating hypothetical deforestation rates higher than those that would actually have occurred.This flexibility is a major limitation, given that it is in the developers' interest to claim that their project has had the greatest possible impact and, therefore, sell more credits.To evaluate these interventions, the researchers compared deforestation measured within the project boundaries with a series of control areas, a combination of real-world locations selected because they were similar, in terms of size and deforestation risk, to the project area .Scientists thus discovered that REDD+ projects they tend to overestimate the amount of deforestation that would have occurred without their presence.According to calculations, these estimates would have allowed the promoters of the interventions to request as many as 89 million credits.

The result is that even particularly impactful companies can purchase these credits and flaunt their commitment in the fight against climate change.Among these there is for example the multinational oil company ENI, which for years has been using the REDD+ tool to offset the emissions caused by its extractive activities.In fact, the six-legged dog has long announced that it has signed agreements for projects of this kind in various countries in Latin America and Africa.It is a pity, however, that the credibility of compensation schemes, as confirmed by recent research, is definitely compromised.Calculations based on random estimates that support projects mostly useful for keeping the economic model based on the extraction of fossil fuels alive for decades to come.

[by Simone Valeri]