Skip to content
Menu
REDD-Monitor
  • Start here
  • About REDD-Monitor
  • REDD: An introduction
  • Contact
REDD-Monitor

Forest offsets remain excluded from ETS – for now

Posted on 13 January 200930 April 2019
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Email this to someone
email

FERN’s EU Forest Watch reports on the EU Emissions Trading Scheme directive, which was adopted on 17 December 2008. Forest credits are excluded from the ETS until at least 2020. This is good news, although they should be excluded after 2020 as well.

The EU’s target of 20 per cent emission reductions by 2020 is already too weak. The EU needs to reduce dramatically its greenhouse gas emissions, not use the offsets scam to allow industry to continue polluting.

Forest offsets remain excluded from ETS – for now

EU Forest Watch, Issue 134, January 2009.

As part of the EU’s climate change package,¹ the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) directive² was adopted on 17 December 2008. Despite language suggesting the EU may wish to include forest credits at a later stage, it is clear that the revised ETS will not include forest credits until at least 2020. However, the directive can still be amended after a Commission report assessing afforestation, reforestation, avoided deforestation and forest degradation in third countries. This is to be presented within three months of signing a UNFCCC agreement.

The final text is a clear improvement on Parliament’s original proposal to include forest offsets in the ETS, which, in FERN’s view, would have had negative effects on forests, the climate and the ETS’ credibility. Still, by allowing offsetting of up to 50 per cent of EU-wide reductions for 2008-20 – offsets that combine real and hypothetical efforts in third countries – the directive will create a significant ‘carbon credit trap.’ Guiding principles for offset credits are meant to ensure that offsets are ‘real, verifiable, additional and permanent,’ but experience with the Kyoto Protocol’s CDM demonstrates that this is unlikely to be the case.

The directive supports the establishment of an internationally recognised system for reducing deforestation and increasing afforestation and reforestation within the context of the post-2012 climate agreement. Yet by accepting offsets, the directive will, at best, only neutralise a tiny percentage of emissions instead of requiring a real U-turn toward a low-carbon economy.
 


[1] Included in the climate package were: the revision of the EU Emission Trading Scheme; the effort-sharing decision; the carbon capture and storage (CCS) legal framework; the renewable energies directive; the regulation on CO2 emissions from cars and the fuel quality directive.

[2] www.europarl.europa.eu

 

Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Email this to someone
email

Related

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

SUBSCRIBE!

Enter your email address to receive notification of new posts.

Recent themes
Natural Climate Solutions
WWF's conservation scandals
Aviation and offsetting
Conservation Watch

REDDisms

“Based on the Information and Transaction Law, photographs can be only be used as evidence if they are backed up by an official report from the investigation and direct [confirmation and] testimonies from employees from the company who joined the trip.”

— Shaifuddin Akbar, Indonesia’s Environment Ministry’s investigation division head, commenting on the photographs of burning peat swamp forest in Tripa, July 2012

Recent Posts

  • Graeme Biggar, Director-General of the UK’s National Economic Crime Centre: “There is not a sufficient deterrent for fraudsters and there is insufficient recourse for victims”
  • Coronavirus notes #7: How the Colombian government is rolling back social and environment safeguards during the pandemic
  • Peru cancels its World Bank FCPF Carbon Fund programme
  • The World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility’s latest hot air scam: Retroactive credits
  • Some questions for Frithjof Finkbeiner, founder of Plant-for-the-Planet

Recent Comments

  • Arthur Charles Claxton on Graeme Biggar, Director-General of the UK’s National Economic Crime Centre: “There is not a sufficient deterrent for fraudsters and there is insufficient recourse for victims”
  • Chris Lang on Blackmore Bond collapse: Financial Conduct Authority is “responsible for every penny lost”
  • Sam on Blackmore Bond collapse: Financial Conduct Authority is “responsible for every penny lost”
  • barrywarden on Coronavirus notes #7: How the Colombian government is rolling back social and environment safeguards during the pandemic
  • Chris Lang on Why has the Financial Conduct Authority not taken down the website of the clone scam “Good Investment Advisors”?

Issues and Organisations

AB 32 Boiler rooms Bonn California Can REDD save ... ? Carbon accounting Carbon Credits Carbon Offsets CDM Conservation-Watch Conservation International COP21 Paris Deforestation FCPF FERN Financing REDD Forest definition Fossil fuels FPP Friends of the Earth FSC Greenpeace Guest post ICAO Illegal logging Indigenous Peoples Natural Climate Solutions NGO statements Plantations Poznan R-M interview REDD and rights REDD in the news Risk RSPO-Watch Safeguards Sengwer Sustainable Forest Management The Nature Conservancy Ulu Masen UN-REDD UNFCCC World Bank WRM WWF

Countries

Australia Bolivia Brazil Cambodia Cameroon Canada China Colombia Congo Basin region DR Congo Ecuador El Salvador European Union France Germany Guatemala Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Kenya Laos Luxembourg Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Nicaragua Nigeria Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Republic of Congo Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA Vietnam West Papua
©2021 REDD-Monitor | Powered by WordPress and Superb Themes!