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

Tell the California Air Resources Board to reject REDD offsets!

Posted on 13 May 2016

Tell California to reject REDD offsetsCalifornia’s Air Resources Board is planning to allow REDD offsets in its cap and trade scheme, Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32). Friends of the Earth USA has sent out an action alert asking people in California to tell the Chair of Air Resources Board, Mary Nicholls, to reject REDD.

If you are based in California, you can send a message to Mary Nicholls, via Friends of the Earth’s website.

2016-05-13-101158_1680x1026_scrot

In its action alert email, Friends of the Earth USA explains what’s wrong with REDD:

The pay-to-pollute scheme enables partner states and provinces in tropical regions to generate credits from their remaining tropical forests, and sell those credits to polluters in California. This ostensibly “offsets” carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels at polluting facilities in California.
 
But it doesn’t really work that way. Forest offset schemes are particularly dangerous because of serious questions about their on-the-ground effectiveness. They can lead to indigenous and other communities being dislocated or prevented from accessing their traditional lands.
 
What’s more, forest offsets greenwash fossil fuel companies — and delay the real emissions reductions we need in California.

Friends of the Earth USA’s action alert includes the following letter to Mary Nicholls:

Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols,
 
I write to express my concern regarding the evident predisposal of the California Air Resources Board to expand the Cap-and-Trade Program with a highly risky International Forest Sector-based Offsets scheme. As a resident of California, I believe that the exceptional social, economic, legal and environmental risks of integrating sub-national Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) offsets into California’s Cap-and-Trade program are simply too great to justify moving forward with this policy.
 
The imperative to protect the world’s forests could not be clearer, and I applaud our state for taking on the challenge. But there are other, less risky means for us to protect forests globally, including protecting those here at home. I believe California needs to address climate-damaging clear-cutting and other destructive industrial practices in California’s forests, as well as undertake a full accounting for the carbon emissions permitted by the State of California with the ongoing unsustainable exploitation of our forests here at home.
 
At the same time, it is now understood beyond doubt that in order to avert the worst consequences of human-induced climate change, and to keep atmospheric greenhouse gases within safe and agreed-upon thresholds, we must reduce our dependence on fossil fuels as rapidly as possible.
 
This is not to ignore the very real problem of emissions from land-use change in the Amazon and other tropical regions — but to say that California can act in ways that are both more direct and less risky to address the climate emissions for which we, as a state, are responsible. An expansion of California Cap-and-Trade with an International Forest Sector-based Offset scheme will not do what is necessary to avoid the worst impacts of human-induced climate change. Indeed, adding International Forest Sector-based Offsets to the market will only make it easier for California polluters to cover-up their ongoing industrial emissions. Expanding Cap-and-Trade to include environmentally dubious, socially unjust, and economically inequitable International Forest Offsets fails to address the real economic motors of the destruction of tropical forests, as well as the ongoing degradation and carbon depletion of our forests in California.
 
I urge you to not move forward with the proposed rulemaking on International Forest Sector-based Offsets, and to concentrate the development of California climate change mitigation policy on efforts that will actually result in real, measurable, verifiable and permanent emissions reductions here in California, as well as demand-side measures that will reduce the burden that California’s economy has on tropical forests.
 
Thank you for caring for the climate.
 
Sincerely,
 

 

1 thought on “Tell the California Air Resources Board to reject REDD offsets!”

  1. Luan Marks says:
    13 May 2016 at 9:33 pm

    Deadline for comment is today at 5:00 pm PT.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

SUBSCRIBE!

Recent themes
30x30
Natural Climate Solutions
WWF's conservation scandals
Aviation and offsetting
Conservation Watch

Recent Comments

  • Ben on Response from Kurt Kaiser, Director of Compass Carbon: “Your article was of great concern to us”. And some questions for Kaiser from REDD-Monitor
  • James Mewa Kamaya on Papua New Guinea’s Forest Authority cancels Mayur Resources’ Kamula Doso REDD project
  • Benedikt von Butler on Switzerland’s offsetting deal with Peru excludes REDD. It will still not reduce emissions
  • Chris Ibe on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow
  • Xindia on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow

Recent Posts

  • REDD-Monitor is moving to Substack
  • REDD Project in Brazil Nut concessions in Madre de Dios, Peru finally started paying communities a decade after the project started. “I’m still lacking money,” says one community member
  • REDD-Monitor’s top ten posts in 2022
  • The harsh reality of 30×30: The EU is keen to allow extractivism in the 30×30 target – but not Indigenous Peoples’ territories
  • Human rights abuses against Indigenous Peoples and the proposed “30×30” target

Recent Comments

  • Ben on Response from Kurt Kaiser, Director of Compass Carbon: “Your article was of great concern to us”. And some questions for Kaiser from REDD-Monitor
  • James Mewa Kamaya on Papua New Guinea’s Forest Authority cancels Mayur Resources’ Kamula Doso REDD project
  • Benedikt von Butler on Switzerland’s offsetting deal with Peru excludes REDD. It will still not reduce emissions
  • Chris Ibe on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow
  • Xindia on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow

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 EcoPlanet Bamboo Evictions FCPF Financing REDD Fossil fuels FSC Green Climate Fund Greenpeace Guest post Human rights ICAO Illegal logging Indigenous Peoples Natural Climate Solutions NGO statements Plantations R-M interview REDD and rights REDD in the news Risk RSPO-Watch Safeguards Sengwer The Nature Conservancy UN-REDD UNFCCC Verra 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 Gabon Germany Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Kenya Luxembourg Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Netherlands Nicaragua Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Republic of Congo Sierra Leone Spain Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA West Papua
©2025 REDD-Monitor | Powered by SuperbThemes!