ArticlePDF Available

Policing the voluntary carbon market

Authors:
  • Greenhouse Gas Management Institute

Figures

Content may be subject to copyright.
COMMENTARY
nature reports climate change | VOL 6 | NOVEMBER 2007 | www.nature.com/reports/climatechange 85
Policing the voluntary
carbon market
MICHAEL GILLENWATER1,2,*, DERIK BROEKHOFF3, MARK TREXLER4, JASMINE HYMAN5
AND ROB FOWLER6
Voluntary greenhouse-gas emission offset markets are in need of government oversight.
Numerous opinion polls have
indicated that concern over global
climate change has risen dramatically
in the US and elsewhere1,2,3. One tangible
measure of this growing concern has been
the emergence of voluntary greenhouse-
gas (GHG) o set markets, in which
businesses and consumers purchase GHG
reductions instead of directly reducing
their own emissions4.
A GHG ‘o set’ is an intangible
economic commodity that represents
the avoidance or sequestration of GHG
emissions. GHG o sets are derived from
distinct projects, involving anything from
low-carbon energy production, to energy
e ciency measures, the destruction
of GHGs such as methane and nitrous
oxide, and tree planting and soil carbon
enhancement activities. O sets o er buyers
a potentially lower-cost alternative to
reducing their own emissions (Fig. 1).  e
geographic source of GHG emissions is
irrelevant to their climate change impact.
erefore, GHG emission reductions are a
global, rather than local, public good and
can be traded in a global market5.
Although currently small in
comparison to regulated o set markets
under the Kyoto Protocol, voluntary o set
markets are growing rapidly (Table 1),
especially in the United States, and could
expand tenfold by 20106. Even the US
House of Representatives is preparing to
enter the voluntary o set market as a buyer
under its Green Capital Initiative7.
e purchase of GHG o sets is
economically rational in cases where
reducing emissions attributable to one’s own
activities is more costly. Paying someone else
to pollute less may be wiser — both for the
purchaser and for society as a whole — than
reducing pollution oneself because more
emissions can be reduced for a given
expenditure of resources.  e atmosphere
bene ts to the extent that an o set reduction
is equivalent to an emission reduction made
directly by the purchaser. Recently, however,
o sets have been widely criticized in the
media as to whether they represent real
emission reductions8,9,10,11.
GHG o set transactions face three
fundamental challenges. First, a common
and credible procedure is necessary for
selecting emission reduction projects
made possible by o set credit sales and
for quantifying the reductions achieved
against a business-as-usual (BAU) baseline
in which no speci c actions are taken to
reduce GHG emissions. Second, credible
monitoring is needed to verify that
reductions actually occur as claimed.  ird,
unambiguous property rights over emission
reduction credits are essential for markets
to operate e ectively.
ese challenges are not unique to
o set markets, but they are symptomatic
of markets that trade in commodities
representing public goods. Such markets
do not arise naturally or function e ciently
without assigned property rights, rules
governing transactions, and oversight12.
Consumers need credible information on
the quality of what they are purchasing.
Similar problems exist with the development
of product standards, such as for organic
Before After Before After
Buyer Offset project
GHG emissions
Baseline emissions
Actual emissions
E
m
i
ss
i
on re
d
uct
i
on c
l
a
i
m
$
Figure 1 GHG offset transaction.
COMMENTARY
86 nature reports climate change | VOL 6 | NOVEMBER 2007 | www.nature.com/reports/climatechange
food or sustainable forest products. For
voluntary GHG o sets, commonly accepted
de nitions of quality are currently lacking.
Although GHG o set markets appear
to be expanding on their own, there is a
serious risk of their collapse due to a lack of
standards, policing and credibility.
What has proven most vexing for those
involved in GHG o set markets is de ning
‘additionality’.  is is a key factor determining
a project’s eligibility to sell credits.  e crucial
question is whether the added revenue or
other resources gained from selling GHG
o set credits somehow enables a project’s
implementation, or if the extra revenue
simply lines the pockets of those who would
have implemented the project anyway? In
markets for public goods that lack some form
of mandated quotas (for example, emission
caps), additionality determinations serve
the function of maintaining scarcity in the
marketplace. Without them, GHG o sets
representing business-as-usual reductions
will tend to  ood the market.
ere is no correct technique for
determining additionality because it
involves the evaluation of counterfactual
circumstances. No test for additionality
can provide certainty about what would
have happened otherwise.  e challenge
is akin to statistical hypothesis testing.
Adopt tests that are too stringent and one
risks disqualifying many truly additional
projects, thus restricting o set supplies
and increasing their prices. But adopt tests
that are too lenient, and the market will be
dominated by ‘free riders’ who would have
implemented their projects anyway.
Adding to this challenge is the fact that
the appropriate set of additionality tests
varies from one type of project to another.
For projects that involve  aring of methane
from land lls, for example, excluding
projects that are required by law or
regulation may be su cient to ensure that
the majority of projects are additional. But
for some energy-e ciency or renewable-
energy projects, such as investments in
wind turbines, more thorough tests are
needed to di erentiate additional from
BAU projects.  e solution to additionality
lies in adopting tests that will achieve a
balance of ‘false negatives’ (that is, truly
additional projects mistakenly classi ed
as business-as-usual) and ‘false positives
(that is, BAU projects classi ed as
additional)13. One of the key problems with
voluntary GHG o sets is that no central
authority exists to manage this balance
across the entire market
A second challenge for GHG o sets
has to do with monitoring and veri cation
to assure that o sets are being achieved
in the manner and quantity promised.
Generally, independent third-party
veri cation of o set projects against
a common standard is necessary for
consumers to have a reliable and unbiased
source of information on o set quality.
Analogously, we do not expect consumers
of organic food to monitor the farming
practices of their food suppliers. Yet, for
voluntary carbon o sets, there is no agreed
standard for monitoring methods or the
appropriate frequency and requirements
for veri cation. Determining appropriate
monitoring and veri cation standards
requires balancing costs — which,
if too high, might drive away more
cost-e ective projects — with the need
for environmental integrity.
Finally, GHG o sets face the challenge
of determining ownership of a particular
emission reduction. Ownership of o set
credits is relatively unambiguous in some
cases, but in other cases it is fraught
with complications. For example, the
rights to make speci c environmental
claims are o en disputed with energy-
e ciency or renewable-energy projects
where investors, equipment suppliers,
utilities and electricity customers are
all involved. Legal mechanisms are not
yet in place to disallow two parties from
selling the same reduction or to prevent
a single party from selling a reduction to
multiple buyers. Consistent rules that will
promote investment and market e ciency
are needed, as well as registries to foster
transparency of transactions and track
the retirement of o sets used to make
emission reduction claims.
A number of organizations involved in
the voluntary o set market are developing
standards in an attempt to address these
challenges. But it is not clear if any of these
standards will gain market acceptance
or have the ability to police the practices
of market participants. To date, none of
them has adequately addressed all three
of the aforementioned challenges for
establishing a true o set ‘commodity’
(that is, project eligibility, monitoring and
veri cation procedures, and enforcement of
ownership)14. Although the consequences
are di cult to predict, the confusion
produced by a host of independent
‘standards’ operating in a regulatory vacuum
has the potential to discredit market-based
environmental policies with the public as a
means of addressing climate change.
Environmental commodity markets
are inherently more susceptible to
market failures than traditional markets
because the commodity transacted is both
intangible and represents a public good.
Where buyers cannot easily evaluate the
quality of a good or service, there is a clear
need for quality assurance mechanisms.
Without such mechanisms, competitive
pressures force sellers to minimize quality
and limit transparency.  e result will be
that bad projects will drive good projects
out of the market.
Some governments are beginning to
respond to the need for oversight of these
voluntary markets. In January 2007, the
UK’s Department of Environment and
Rural A airs dra ed a code of best practice
for the voluntary GHG o set market15, and
in July 2007, the Australian government
announced that it would provide a
government-administered program for
businesses and households to become
carbon neutral’ via approved o sets16,17.
Although government intervention
is no guarantee that the challenges
discussed above will be effectively
addressed, we find these efforts
laudable, and call on the US and other
governments to follow the example of the
UK and Australia by setting standards
and overseeing the voluntary GHG offset
marketplace. Specifically, governments
should initially develop best-practice
guidelines that address the three key
challenges described above.
These voluntary guidelines should
immediately be followed by a more
thorough process of standard setting,
with a board to approve project eligibility
criteria, accounting methodologies, as
well as monitoring, registration and
public reporting requirements. Ideally,
governments should build off the
existing work under the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate
Table 1 Size of GHG emissions trading markets
4
2006 volume
(million tons CO
2
equivalents)
2006 value
(US$ million)
GHG offset market
Total Voluntary Market 23.7 91
Voluntary OTC* 13.4 54.9
Chicago Climate Exchange
10.3 36.1
Other GHG trading schemes
EU Emissions Trading Scheme
1,101 24,357
Clean Development Mechanism 475 5,257
* ‘Over-the-counter’
North America’s only marketplace for integrating voluntary legally binding emissions reductions with emissions trading and offsets for
greenhouse gases.
Launched in January 2005, the largest regulatory-based multi-country, multi-sector GHG emissions trading scheme worldwide.
COMMENTARY
nature reports climate change | VOL 6 | NOVEMBER 2007 | www.nature.com/reports/climatechange 87
Change and its Clean Development
Mechanism18 (which allows developed
countries to invest in projects that reduce
emissions in developing countries as an
alternative to more expensive emission
reductions in their own countries),
New South Wales’ Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Scheme19 (which requires
electricity retailers and other parties to
meet mandatory targets for reducing
or offsetting their emissions from the
electricity they supply or use), and
existing non-governmental organization
efforts20. Furthermore, they should
cooperate in their standard setting
processes to harmonize rules and create
a globally-recognized and homogeneous
GHG offset commodity for voluntary
markets. The US Department of
Agriculture has developed a similar
process of bilateral cross-recognitions
of standards for organic food labels that
may serve as a useful model.
Ultimately, mandatory government
policy must be our primary approach
to dealing with climate change and the
GHG emissions that cause it. However,
voluntary GHG o set markets can
contribute to emissions mitigation and
sustainable development objectives while
government-mandated schemes are under
development. Voluntary markets can also
foster innovation through new technologies
and project types still under evaluation
by compliance emission markets. While
governments focus on developing a
consensus on GHG mitigation policies, or
more stringent policies, the voluntary o set
market, with proper government oversight,
has the potential to play a signi cant role in
mitigating future climate change.
References
1. Bannon, B. et al. Americans’ Evaluations of Policies to Reduce
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (New Scientist Magazine, Resources
for the Future, Stanford University, 2007); http://media.
newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/global_warming_poll_
stanford.pdf
2. http://sequestration.mit.edu/research/survey2006.html
3. http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/csr_climatechange.html
4. Hamilton, K. et al. State of the Voluntary Carbon Market 2007:
Picking Up Steam (EcoSystem Marketplace and New Carbon
Finance, 2007); http://ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/
acrobat/Stateo heVoluntaryCarbonMarket17July.pdf
5. Jacobs, M. e Green Economy (Pluto, London, 1991).
6. http://www.ic .com/Newsroom/carbon-o sets-2006.asp
7. http://speaker.gov/issues?id=0023
8. Revkin, A. Carbon-neutral is hip, but is it green?
New York Times, April 29 2007.
9. Harvey, F. & Fidler, S. Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’.
Financial Times, April 25 2007.
10. Carbon o sets: Sins of emission. e Economist,
August 14 2006. Nature 444, 976–977 (2006).
11. Neumayer, E., Weak versus Strong Sustainability
(Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 2003).
12. Trexler, M. C. et al. Sustainable Development Law & Policy VI
(2), 30 (2006).
13. Broekho , D. Linking Markets for GHG Reductions: Can It Be
Done? (International Network for Environmental Compliance
and Enforcement, 2007); http://www.inece.org/emissions/
dublin/Broekho .pdf
14. DEFRA Establishing a voluntary code of best practice for the
provision of carbon o setting to UK customers; http://www.defra.
gov.uk/corporate/consult/carbono setting-cop/index.htm
15. http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/global_warming/
July18o setFTC.shtml 16. http://www.greenhouse.gov.
au/greenhousefriendly/index.html
17. http://cdm.unfccc.int/
18. http://www.greenhousegas.nsw.gov.au
19. Broekho , D. Vo lun tar y C arb on O sets — Getting What You
Paid For (World Resources Institute, 2007); http://pdf.wri.
org/20070718_broekho _testimony.pdf
1Princeton University; 2Greenhouse Gas
Experts Network; 3World Resources Institute;
4EcoSecurities; 5 e Gold Standard;
6Abatement Solutions — Asia Paci c
*e-mail: gillenwater@alum.mit.edu
Nature Publishing Group offers a range of journals in the physical sciences - from the broad scope of Nature to specifi c
titles in physics, materials and chemical biology, and new titles in nanotechnology and photonics.
Each journal carries a mix of research papers, review titles, news and views, and commentaries, that will keep you up-to-
date with the latest research in your area.
Nature Publishing Group’s physical science journals are available through personal subscription, institutional print
subscription, and site licences. Visit www.nature.com to subscribe today.
Nature Publishing Group journals
Covering the physical sciences spectrum
NEW NEW
12557-06PS2007ClusterAd_HPH 1 5/1/07 10:47:42
... The key concept in offsetting practices and standards is "additionality" [28,33]. GHG reductions or removal are additional if they would not have occurred in the absence of a market for offset credits. ...
... Most assessments of the attractiveness of soil carbon programs focus on the structural and eligibility rules [19,28] as summarized in Table 2. However, this may not be an accurate guide to the drivers of participation as soil carbon offsets are an economic commodity [33,37]. Landholders choosing between different soil carbon offset standards could be expected to pay the most attention to the potential for revenue and the costs incurred [25,38]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Despite the potential role of soil carbon offset schemes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are concerns that the rules for assessment, monitoring, and operation are barriers to engagement. This may explain why there is low participation of Australian landholders in soil carbon projects. This study reviews the literature on three leading voluntary carbon standards and methods to assess their suitability for developing soil carbon projects in grazing systems in Australia. The soil carbon method of each standard was analysed based on several criteria: scope, eligibility/applicability, newness and additionality, permanency, baselines and quantification methodology, environmental sustainability, safeguard mechanism, and crediting period. A hypothetical grazing case study in Central Queensland, Australia’s premier beef cattle region, was used to model the cost-effectiveness and potential returns from establishing soil carbon projects under the three standards. Results show that credits created under the Emissions Reduction Fund in Australia generate higher returns for soil carbon projects compared to the Verified Carbon Standard and Gold Standard. This is largely due to a higher market price for soil carbon credits in the Emissions Reduction Fund, reflecting more robust standards of assessment and verification. While assessment costs for credits were higher in the international schemes, returns were lower because prices reflected less rigorous standards.
... In this method, we disregard carbon fluxes for this reason, and only account for carbon stocks in the matte. On the other hand, avoided emissions (protecting standing stock) are being criticized widely, because the counterfactuals are never easy to produce which undermines the claim that projects are additional (Gillenwater et al., 2007). Against this criticism, the method developed here is very conservative on the type of impacts taken into account and on the degradation rate that is used for the counterfactual, which greatly limits the risk of overestimating the carbon gains from projects using this method. ...
... Here, this threat is unlikely as the Label Bas Carbone is in dire need of projects as new regulation requires several French economic sectors, including energy and aviation, to buy LBC emission reductions in addition to other stringent policies that aim at reducing emissions from these sectors (EU ETS, ban of short distance flights). In other settings, this risk is however not excluded and should be carefully considered when designing carbon markets (Gillenwater et al., 2007). ...
Article
Conservation of ecosystems is an important tool for climate change mitigation. Seagrasses, mangroves, salt-marshes and other marine ecosystems have particularly high capacities to sequester and store organic carbon (blue carbon), and are being impacted by human activities. Calls have been made to mainstream blue carbon into policies, including carbon markets. Building on the scientific literature and the French voluntary carbon standard , the 'Label Bas-Carbone', we develop the first method for the conservation of Posidonia oceanica seagrasses using carbon finance. This methodology assesses the emission reduction potential of projects that reduce physical impacts from boating and anchoring. We show how this methodology was institutionalized thanks to a tiered approach on key parameters including carbon stocks, degradation rates, and decomposition rates. We discuss future needs regarding (i) how to strengthen the robustness of the method, and (ii) the expansion of the method to restoration of seagrasses and to other blue carbon ecosystems.
... The availability of both past management information and historical AGB or carbon stock information opens the door to a host of opportunities to quantify the outcomes of various management regimes (Kaarakka et al., 2021;Patton et al., 2022). Further, the burden of proving additionality for enrollment in carbon offset programs hinges on establishing credible business-as-usual baselines that are impossible to produce without historical data (Gillenwater et al., 2007). Map datasets such as those developed here can fill this gap for both potential enrollees and program managers alike, minimizing many of the otherwise prohibitive up-front costs and requirements (Charnley et al., 2010;Kerchner and Keeton, 2015). ...
... Up-to-date maps of AGB and carbon stocks will allow decisionmakers to prioritize parcels for both protection via purchase of fee titles or conservation easements, as well as for enrollment in improved forest management programs and carbon markets (Merenlender et al., 2004;Malmsheimer et al., 2008;Kelly et al., 2015;Kerchner and Keeton, 2015). Similarly, timely annual AGB maps can support wall-to-wall MRV and harvest monitoring, not necessarily in lieu of essential field visits, but as a means to screen those parcels which are likely in compliance from those which require a closer look (Gillenwater et al., 2007). Not only would monitoring costs be significantly reduced under such a system, likely lowering financial break-even thresholds for potential projects (Charnley et al., 2010;Kerchner and Keeton, 2015), but strictly random site visits would also be rendered dispensable when a regular census of properties or land holdings is otherwise unfeasible. ...
Article
Full-text available
Understanding historical forest dynamics, specifically changes in forest biomass and carbon stocks, has become critical for assessing current forest climate benefits and projecting future benefits under various policy, regulatory, and stewardship scenarios. Carbon accounting frameworks based exclusively on national forest inventories are limited to broad-scale estimates, but model-based approaches that combine these inventories with remotely sensed data can yield contiguous fine-resolution maps of forest biomass and carbon stocks across landscapes over time. Here we describe a fundamental step in building a map-based stock-change framework: mapping historical forest biomass at fine temporal and spatial resolution (annual, 30 m) across all of New York State (USA) from 1990 to 2019, using freely available data and open-source tools. Using Landsat imagery, US Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data, and off-the-shelf LiDAR collections we developed three modeling approaches for mapping historical forest aboveground biomass (AGB): training on FIA plot-level AGB estimates (direct), training on LiDAR-derived AGB maps (indirect), and an ensemble averaging predictions from the direct and indirect models. Model prediction surfaces (maps) were tested against FIA estimates at multiple scales. All three approaches produced viable outputs, yet tradeoffs were evident in terms of model complexity, map accuracy, saturation, and fine-scale pattern representation. The resulting map products can help identify where, when, and how forest carbon stocks are changing as a result of both anthropogenic and natural drivers alike. These products can thus serve as inputs to a wide range of applications including stock-change assessments, monitoring reporting and verification frameworks, and prioritizing parcels for protection or enrollment in improved management programs.
... From a practical perspective, different decarbonization policies translate into various degrees of actual decarbonization. Whereas the insufficiency of voluntary (Cames et al., 2016;Gillenwater et al., 2007;Martin & Saikawa, 2017;Potoski & Prakash, 2013;Rehan & Nehdi, 2005) and information-based policy types (Grolleau et al., 2016) is well-established, the relative effectiveness of market-based and command-and-control policies is more contested. Market-based policies are commonly judged to be theoretically most cost-effective in reducing emissions (Baranzini et al., 2017;Wills et al., 2022). ...
Article
Full-text available
Understanding predictors of climate policy support is important for tackling climate change. Previous research demonstrated that policy support is partially driven by cultural worldviews. Yet, treating policies as a homogeneous concept, this literature neglected the existence of different policy types. Making this distinction is important because each type implies a distinct solution to the same problem (i.e., carbon emissions) with varying degrees of retained freedom for agents. Given that diverging worldviews imply different preferences for individual freedom, we hypothesize an interaction between policy types and cultural worldviews on climate policy support: Policy support is stronger when the retained freedom of a policy type is aligned with the worldview-based preferences for such freedom. Using a representative sample of the UK population (N = 1991) and actual policy proposals of UK political parties, our results partly support our hypothesized interaction. Although communitarian-egalitarians, compared to all other worldview groups, indicated stronger support across policy types, contrary to our hypothesis they showed their weakest support for command-and-control and their strongest for information-based policies. Individualist-hierarchists, in contrast and in line with our argument , showed the weakest support for command-and-control policies and strongest support for voluntary policies.
... This study focuses on mapping the top 30 cm SOC content (%) over the continental U.S. (CONUS) croplands at a 10 m spatial resolution. The interest in this mapping study is encouraged by the scientific consensus on the need to increase SOC stocks through sustainable agricultural management practices [5,39] and the availability of stimulus mechanisms, such as voluntary carbon markets [40] in the U.S. To help with this carbon mapping project, 6092 soil samples, including surface (0-5 cm; 4367 soil samples), subsurface (5-30 cm; 968 soil samples), and full column (0-30 cm; 757 soil samples) samples, were collected from agricultural lands of non-tree row crops over the CONUS in 2020, 2021, and 2022 (hereafter referred to as 2020-2022 soil samples, specific collection dates for these soil samples are listed in Appendix A Table A1). The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Cropland Data Layer [41] was used to assist in the collection of soil samples from various crop types, such as corn, soybean, wheat, alfalfa, cotton, and sunflower. ...
Article
Full-text available
Increases in organic carbon within agricultural soils are widely recognized as a “negative emission” that removes CO2 from the atmosphere. Accurate quantification of soil organic carbon (SOC) to a certain depth in the spatial domain is critical for the effective implementation of improved land management practices in croplands. Currently, there is a lack of understanding regarding what depth strategy should be used to estimate SOC at 0–30 cm when sample datasets come from multiple depths. Furthermore, few studies have examined depth strategies for mapping SOC at the agricultural management level (i.e., field level), opting instead for point-based analysis. Here, three types of approaches with different depth strategies were evaluated for their ability to quantify 0–30 cm SOC content based on soil samples from 0–5 (surface), 5–30 (subsurface), and 0–30 cm (full column). These approaches involved the generalized additive model and machine learning techniques, i.e., artificial neural networks, random forest, and XGBoost. The soil samples used for the model evaluation and selection consisted of the newly collected samples in 2020–2022 and the Rapid Carbon Assessment (RaCA) legacy samples collected in 2010–2011. Environmental covariates corresponding to these SOC measurements were used in model training, including long-term physical climate, short-term weather, topographic and edaphic, and remotely sensed variables. Among the models evaluated in this study, the XGB regression model with a full column depth assignment strategy yielded the best prediction performance for 0–30 cm SOC content, with an r² (squared Pearson correlation coefficient) of 0.48, an RMSE (root mean square error) of 0.29%, an ME (mean error) of 0.06%, an MAE of 0.25%, and an MEC (modeling efficiency coefficient) of 0.36 at the pixel level and an r² of 0.64, an RMSE of 0.32%, an ME of −0.20%, an MAE of 0.28%, and an MEC of 0.48 at the field level. This study highlights that machine learning models with a full column depth strategy should be used to quantify 0–30 cm SOC content in agricultural soils over the continental United States (CONUS).
... In light of these challenges, the spatial distribution of differences, and the general lack of consensus on accounting protocols among carbon markets, there may be incentives to act in bad faith. Of particular concern is the opportunity to deliberately choose one system over another on a case-by-case basis in order to maximize payments or credits for avoided deforestation, aforestation, or improved management (Gillenwater et al. 2007;Charnley, Diaz, and Gosnell 2010;Kaarakka et al. 2021). We therefore underscore that this step-change represents an advance towards a more realistic representation of forest carbon density across the landscape and thus should be adopted as quickly as possible. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
The United States national forest inventory (NFI) serves as the foundation for forest aboveground biomass (AGB) and carbon accounting across the nation. These data enable design-based estimates of forest carbon stocks and stock-changes at state and regional levels, but also serve as inputs to model-based approaches for characterizing forest carbon stocks and stock-changes at finer spatial and temporal resolutions. Although NFI tree and plot-level data are often treated as truth in these models, they are in fact estimates based on regional species-group models and parameters known collectively as the Component Ratio Method (CRM). In late 2023 the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program introduced a new National Scale Volume and Biomass Estimators (NSVB) system to replace CRM nationwide and offer more precise and accurate representations of forest AGB and carbon. Given the prevalence of model-based AGB studies relying on FIA, there is concern about the transferability of methods from CRM to NSVB models, as well as the comparability of existing CRM AGB products (e.g. maps) to new and forthcoming NSVB AGB products. To begin addressing these concerns we compared previously published CRM AGB maps and estimates to new maps and estimates produced using identical methods with NSVB AGB reference data. Our results suggest that models relying on passive satellite imagery (e.g. Landsat) provide acceptable estimates of point-in-time NSVB AGB and carbon stocks, but fail to accurately quantify growth in mature closed-canopy forests. We highlight that existing estimates, models, and maps based on FIA reference data are no longer compatible with NSVB, and recommend new methods as well as updated models and maps for accommodating this step-change. Our collective ability to adopt NSVB in our modeling and mapping workflows will help us provide the most accurate spatial forest carbon data possible in order to better inform local management and decision making.
... Voluntary carbon markets has crossed over US$ 2 billion transaction (Forest Trends Association, 2022); out of which about 75% of the credits have come from REDD+ (Granziera et al., 2022). Complementary carbon sequestration initiatives would be beneficial for the climate action; however, there are no globally agreed rules, oversight organizations, and governing mechanisms for that voluntary market (Gillenwater et al., 2007;Granziera et al., 2022). In this regard, voluntary market might give excuses to the big polluters for not involving in the globally agreed REDD+ framework, rather it might escalate greenwashing for mining and oil companies, business entities, and financial institutions. ...
Article
As an important initiative of climate action, REDD+ has been increasingly discussed in global policy arena. But delay in wider scale yet full-fledged implementation and its poor performance have raised suspects and pushed REDD+ toward in a long line of “conservation fad”. In this paper, we have discussed the following ten questions to REDD+: (1) Does REDD+ address major causes of deforestation? (2) Does REDD+ contribute to global emissions reduction? (3) Does REDD+ recognize the inherent capacity of local people to manage their forests? (4) Does REDD+ respect the rights of indigenous people and local communities? (5) Does REDD+ justify the local governance and countries’ sovereignty? (6) Does REDD+ ensure the transparency in program design and architecture? (7) Does REDD+ give credits to the carbon sequestering communities? (8) Does REDD+ supply sufficient reasons to justify the current carbon price? (9) Does REDD+ achieve climate goals through the voluntary carbon markets? and (10) Does REDD+ ensure sustainability of the ongoing projects? While discussing the questions, we have referred to global environmental issues of deforestation, emissions, transparency, decentralized governance, indigenous and local communities, voluntary carbon market, price effect, and other various contemporary sustainability issues. We argue that REDD+ could be a low-hanging fruit and act as a complimentary action to achieve its climate goal if it can address the issues raised under those ten questions.
... Utilizing offset certificates and units plays a crucial role in global decarbonization by supporting mitigation efforts in developing countries. However, concerns have been raised regarding the effectiveness and reliability of offset units for compensation (Gillenwater et al 2007). ...
Article
Full-text available
Addressing the growing issue of climate change demands active measures. With its significant carbon footprint, the building industry needs to make immediate efforts contributing to achieving the Paris Agreement's objective of restricting global warming to 1.5°C. This review focuses on Net Zero Emission Buildings (NZEBs) which are claimed to offer a viable option to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the built environment. The review covers both the recent academic literature on NZEBs, and the NZEB roadmaps from the member organizations of the World Green Building Council (WGBC), focusing on those Green Building Councils (GBCs) actively working to implement NZEBs in their local contexts. By synthesizing a broad range of viewpoints and practices derived from academic literature and roadmaps, this review provides a holistic overview of the different perspectives to the current state of NZEBs and to their future. The review shows that NZEBs have the potential to provide significant environmental, economic, and social advantages, improving the built environment's overall sustainability. The review also promotes a more thorough understanding over NZEBs that can facilitate collaborative policymaking and action amongst stakeholders.
... The effectiveness of each policy instrument in reducing carbon emissions is debated (Nature Sustainability, 2021). Less contested is the insufficiency of voluntary instruments to effectively reduce emissions (Cames et al., 2016;Gillenwater et al., 2007;Martin & Saikawa, 2017;Potoski & Prakash, 2013;Rehan & Nehdi, 2005). Similarly, while information-based policies are necessary to have a better-informed public, they are seen as insufficient to 'encourage environmentally friendly consumerism' (Grolleau et al., 2016, p. 799). ...
Article
Full-text available
Decarbonization policies require public support to be implemented and to remain in legislation. Examinations of public support for climate policies tend to focus on a small number of policy instruments and/or use hypothetical instead of real policy proposals. Here, we address these criticisms by examining public support across four distinct policy instruments – command-and-control, market-based, information-based, and voluntary – using sixteen policy proposals by UK political parties and government institutions. In addition to assessing UK national policy support, we also explore regional differences. Using a representative sample of the UK population (N = 1,911), we find that, at a national level, individuals preferred instruments shown to be less effective in reaching net-zero: information-based and voluntary policies. Our results indicate that the extent to which individuals believe in the free market, their environmental worldviews and political party support as well as their age are all correlated with policy support. We find stark regional differences where, compared to individuals living in Greater London, those living in the remainder of the country were 32% and 30% less likely to support command-and-control and market-based policies, respectively (among other regional differences). Regional variations in free-market beliefs and population density partly explain differences in policy support. We propose policymakers focus on place-based initiatives to increase support for decarbonization policies that are more effective in reaching net-zero and on improving the perception of market-based and command-and-control policies through positive framing and policy bundles.
Article
Why change your lifestyle when you can pay a company to save your greenhouse-gas emissions for you? Quirin Schiermeier investigates whether carbon offsetting can really save the planet.
State of the Voluntary Carbon Market 2007: Picking Up Steam (EcoSystem Marketplace and New Carbon Finance
  • K Hamilton
Hamilton, K. et al. State of the Voluntary Carbon Market 2007: Picking Up Steam (EcoSystem Marketplace and New Carbon Finance, 2007);
Carbon-neutral is hip, but is it green
  • A Revkin
Revkin, A. Carbon-neutral is hip, but is it green? New York Times, April 29 2007.
Industry caught in carbon 'smokescreen' . Financial Times Carbon off sets: Sins of emission
  • F Harvey
  • S Fidler
Harvey, F. & Fidler, S. Industry caught in carbon 'smokescreen'. Financial Times, April 25 2007. 10. Carbon off sets: Sins of emission. Th e Economist, August 14 2006. Nature 444, 976–977 (2006).
Weak versus Strong Sustainability
  • E Neumayer
Neumayer, E., Weak versus Strong Sustainability (Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 2003).
Broekhoff .pdf 14. DEFRA Establishing a voluntary code of best practice for the provision of carbon off setting to UK customers
  • D Broekhoff
  • Linking Markets
Broekhoff, D. Linking Markets for GHG Reductions: Can It Be Done? (International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement, 2007); http://www.inece.org/emissions/ dublin/Broekhoff.pdf 14. DEFRA Establishing a voluntary code of best practice for the provision of carbon off setting to UK customers; http://www.defra. gov.uk/corporate/consult/carbonoff setting-cop/index.htm 15. http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/global_warming/ July18off setFTC.shtml 16. http://www.greenhouse.gov. au/greenhousefriendly/index.html 17. http://cdm.unfccc.int/ 18. http://www.greenhousegas.nsw.gov.au
Industry caught in carbon 'smokescreen'. Financial Times
  • F Harvey
  • S Fidler
Harvey, F. & Fidler, S. Industry caught in carbon 'smokescreen'. Financial Times, April 25 2007.
Carbon off sets: Sins of emission
Carbon off sets: Sins of emission. Th e Economist, August 14 2006. Nature 444, 976-977 (2006).