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

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

 

  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Facebook

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

Recent Comments

  • Chris Lang on Green IS Group: An FSC-certified Ponzi scheme
  • Tom Rayner on Green IS Group: An FSC-certified Ponzi scheme
  • Alan N. Connor on 30×30 target “not supported by the science”
  • Jeremy Sweet on 30×30 target “not supported by the science”
  • Chris Lang on Al Jazeera: Why are Tanzania’s Maasai being forced off their ancestral land?

Recent Posts

  • Statement from Kichwa Indigenous communities about the Cordillera Azul National Park REDD (PNCAZ) project: “No to the false climate solutions offered as ‘Nature Based Solutions’ and ‘carbon neutrality’ by oil and mining companies that pollute in other regions of the world, such as Shell, Total, BHP, and others, who buy carbon from the PNCAZ.”
  • 30×30 target “not supported by the science”
  • Aby L. Sène on “Land Grabs and Conservation Propaganda” in Africa
  • NIHT Inc’s misleading statements about the company’s REDD operations in Papua New Guinea
  • Global Forestry Investments scam: Andrew Skeene and Omari Bowers sentenced to 11 years in prison

Recent Comments

  • Chris Lang on Green IS Group: An FSC-certified Ponzi scheme
  • Tom Rayner on Green IS Group: An FSC-certified Ponzi scheme
  • Alan N. Connor on 30×30 target “not supported by the science”
  • Jeremy Sweet on 30×30 target “not supported by the science”
  • Chris Lang on Al Jazeera: Why are Tanzania’s Maasai being forced off their ancestral land?

Issues and Organisations

30x30 AB 32 Andes Amazon Boiler rooms California Can REDD save ... ? Carbon accounting Carbon Credits Carbon Offsets CDM Conservation-Watch Conservation International COP21 Paris Cryptocurrency 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 The Nature Conservancy UN-REDD UNFCCC World Bank WRM WWF

Countries

Australia Bolivia Brazil Cambodia Cameroon Canada China Colombia Congo Basin region Costa Rica DR Congo Ecuador El Salvador European Union France Germany Guatemala Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Kenya Laos Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Nicaragua Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Republic of Congo Sierra Leone Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA Vietnam West Papua
©2022 REDD-Monitor | Powered by WordPress and Superb Themes!