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

German supermarket Aldi buys carbon offsets from monoculture eucalyptus plantations in Uruguay in order to claim that its milk is “carbon neutral”

Posted on 18 July 202219 July 2022

By Chris Lang

Last month, German television channel ZDF broadcast a programme about Aldi, one of Europe’s largest food supermarkets, and its claims of carbon neutral products. “Carbon neutral” milk, for example.

The programme is available here with English subtitles:

Aldi’s milk comes from the Molkerei Gropper GmbH & Co. KG. The milk is produced in an industrial dairy operation in Bissingen, Bavaria. ZDF reports that since 2020, Aldi’s milk production has emitted 55,000 tons of carbon – from the cow to the supermarket shelf. Aldi claims that the milk is “carbon neutral” because it buys carbon offsets.

Manuel Wiemann of Foodwatch tells ZDF that this is deeply problematic:

Manufacturers suggest with the term “climate neutral” that the product would not harm the climate. That is false and therefore misleading.

Unfortunately, the ZDF programme doesn’t go into any detail about the problems with drinking cows’ milk: the environmental issues, the impact on the climate, and the animal rights issues. Neither does it put forward any of the arguments in favour of a vegan diet.

Aldi buys carbon offsets

But at least ZDF shows a clip of the cages in which the cows live:

Aldi buys carbon offsets

The ZDF programme looks at three of Aldi’s offsetting projects: tree planting in Germany; an industrial tree plantation in Uruguay; and an efficient cook stoves project in Ghana.

Industrial tree plantations in Uruguay

This post focusses on the industrial tree plantation project in Uruguay. The project title on the Verra protect database is “‘Guanaré’ forest plantations on degraded grasslands under extensive grazing”.

The project consists of more than 21,000 hectares of eucalyptus monocultures. The project was set up by Guanaré AS, a Uruguayan forestry investment firm founded by Peter Lyford Pyke. The industrial forestry operations on the ground are carried out by Agroempresa Forestal, a Uruguayan company. The timber is harvested and shipped to India and China.

Aldi buys carbon offsets

ZDF interviews Dan Guapura, Country Manager of Agroempresa Forestal Uruguay, who says that,

“The high-quality wood is used as plywood or veneer in contrast to wood with knotholes, which can be used as carcassing timber or as construction timber.”

Simon Counsell, former director of Rainforest Foundation UK, tells ZDF that,

Aldi buys carbon offsets“The problem with these kinds of products is that they have a very short life cycle, they probably end up being burnt or thrown into landfills, which is the worst option, because they then degrade into methane which is an even more potent gas than carbon dioxide. Greenhouse gas emissions can in fact get worse rather than better.”

Meanwhile Aldi states that “The aim of the reforestation project in Uruguay is the sustainable production of wood . . . only high-quality logs are produced and no pulp.”

But workers in the plantations told ZDF something different. They pointed out some tree trunks that will end up in a pulp mill. Agroempresa Forestal’s Dan Guapura also contradicts Aldi:

“In reality, when you talk about this forest [sic], one of the goals is cellulose production. Another part of the trees is used as biomas for renewable energy. But the crown of the tree usually ends up in the pulp mill.”

Additionality, or carbon finance as another subsidy for the plantation industry?

ZDF raises the issue of additionality. Would the plantation project have gone ahead without carbon finance? As Simon Counsell points out, timber production is a profitable industry. “That would strongly suggest,” he says, “that the project is not actually additional and does not require carbon funding. The carbon credits may bring additional profit but that does not satisfy the criteria of additionality.”

Aldi refers ZDF to ClimatePartner, whose other clients include supermarkets Rewe, Lidl, and Edeka. ClimatePartner declined to be interviewed but stated that “Additionality is an essential characteristic of climate protection projects, and in the Guanaré reforestation [sic] project in Uruguay, this is fully and demonstrably the case.”

ZDF asks Guapura what percentage of the turnover comes from sales of carbon credits. He laughs and says,

Aldi buys carbon offsets“You can ask questions! I can’t say at the moment.

“Because the sale of carbon credits is not an ongoing business like the sale of timber. The carbon credits, or the CO2 are an additional business for our investors and an additional motivation to invest.”
 

ZDF concludes that “additional” means not saving the climate, but making a profit.

Predictably enough, Verra backs industrial tree plantations

In a response, Verra states that the project documents explain the rationale behind the project and list the relevant methodologies. Verra is keen to defend a corporation selling carbon offsets, rather than look at the implication for the climate of selling “hot air” offsets.

Verra even describes Guanaré’s industrial tree plantations as “sustainable forest management”. In doing so, Verra is backing the forest industry’s argument that plantations are forests. The argument is ludicrous. Plantations exist so that the timber industry or the pulp and paper industry can extract profit from the land. Forests, obviously, are something else altogether: ecosystems, habitats for countless animals, and homes to millions of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. (Although once the timber industry gets its hands on the forest it also sees forests as a means to extract profit.)

Verra argues that carbon finance supported a “staggering” 94% of the timber plantations established in Uruguay between 2006 and 2011, and that ZDF dismisses the risks involved in setting up industrial tree plantations. But Verra is dismissing the role that subsidies play in creating plantations. Carbon finance is just one more subsidy that the industry is more than happy to pocket.

In Uruguay, industrial tree plantations were promoted by a series of “aid” projects over decades. Here’s a sample:

  • 1951: a UN Food and Agriculture mission together with the World Bank.
  • Mid-1980s: The Japanese International Cooperation Agency funded a feasibility study of building a pulp mill in Uruguay.
  • 1988: Uruguay’s National Forestry Plan is based on a JICA study of establishing tree plantations in Uruguay.

This was followed by a World Bank forestry loan that the Uruguayan government used to set up a series of subsidies to the plantation industry, including tax exemptions, partial refund of plantation costs, long-term soft loans, reduced duty on machinery and vehicle imports, construction of roads and bridges and equal benefits for foreign investors.

The World Rainforest Movement calculates that between 1988 and 2000 the Uruguayan government handed over more than US$414 million in direct and indirect subsidies to the plantation industry.

Carbon finance is just another subsidy. And of course the plantation industry has taken the subsidy and argued that they couldn’t possibly survive without it. And of course Verra believes the industry’s stories.

As Foodwatch’s Manuel Wiemann tells ZDF,

Aldi buys carbon offsets“If we want to protect the climate, it is important to reduce emissions significantly here in Germany. If we rely instead on bogus solutions, such as questionable projects in the Global South, where there is no guarantee they will actually protect the climate, then this will not help us at all. And we don’t have time to lie to ourselves.”

 

1 thought on “German supermarket Aldi buys carbon offsets from monoculture eucalyptus plantations in Uruguay in order to claim that its milk is “carbon neutral””

  1. Kathleen McCroskey says:
    19 July 2022 at 5:44 am

    When you see a mature forest, a large naturally forested area, you are looking at the cumulative, essentially end-point, growth potential of those soils. You are looking at a functioning re-cycling system of nutrients. This system is sustainable only when untouched, nothing taken away from it – all life lives and dies there. So when the capitalists/colonizers take away the original trees, and each time they harvest a “crop”, with each loss from that area a large quantity of the original mineral content is lost and never replaced, particularly phosphorus and potash as well as essential micro-nutrients. Often these tropical soils are actually quite poor, with a large part of their usable mineral content tied up in the forest biomass. And you want to extract from that and call it sustainable? Not to mention the loss of animal life and other biodiversity issues. You expect to earn a carbon offset from this ecological damage?

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!