In an Alaskan rainforest, between mountains and fjords, soar majestic Sitka spruces and a few western hemlocks. The carbon stored in these trees, like that of dozens of other forests in the United States, is claimed by major Quebec polluters who want to offset their emissions. However, scientists are sounding the alarm: the climate benefit of these projects would be greatly overestimated.
Forests are a centerpiece of the common carbon market of Quebec and California. To comply with an emissions cap that decreases from year to year, companies can improve their carbon footprint by buying emission rights from other market participants, or even offset credits from activities that do not are not subject to the market, like forestry.
In practice, the vast majority of common market offset credits come from forestry projects. And all these forestry projects were carried out in the United States, because until December 2022, Quebec did not have a protocol allowing it to issue such carbon credits itself. Quebec participants therefore had to turn to the credits issued by California.
From 2013 to 2020, Quebec companies subject to the carbon market have purchased 16.2 million forest credits from American promoters, each corresponding to one tonne of CO2. The amounts paid are not public, but, based on last year’s average price, these credits are worth $380,000 million. The Government of Quebec has already recognized that this was a major “capital flight”.
Quebec’s major emitters — ArcelorMittal, Ciment McInnis, Énergie Valero, Lafarge, Rio Tinto and Suncor, in particular — have purchased offset credits from 71 American forest carbon sequestration projects between 2013 and 2020, according to a review by The duty. Thanks to their support for these projects, these companies “cancelled” 6.3% of their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during the most recent compliance period, from 2018 to 2020.
Little or no real profit
What are these projects? More often than not, it is not about planting trees. Instead, proponents commit to improving their forest management practices: harvesting less timber, thinning to increase productivity, and increasing the density of mature stands. Credits are granted for the carbon sequestered beyond a reference scenario, according to which the forest would be exploited normally.
However, forest carbon credits are not unanimous. If miscalculated, they can falsely offset very real GHG emissions. For the past two years, the real climate benefits of forest sequestration projects supervised by California have also been the subject of serious questioning by American scientists.
One of the latest studies, published in September 2022, evaluated, using satellite data, the performance of 37 projects to improve forestry practices carried out in California. The authors concluded that after a decade, these projects had accumulated no additional carbon compared to what would have happened without the offset project.
“We were trying to detect changes after the start of an offset project on a forest plot, or in comparison with other surrounding plots. The short answer is that we didn’t find anything,” says Shane Coffield, one of the study’s authors, who is now a postdoctoral fellow in planetary science at NASA. However, several promoters claimed considerable carbon gains, up to 5% per year.
Misleading data?
Another aspect that worries the scientific community is that of the credits issued when the projects are created. Indeed, the promoters receive credits from year to year, according to the carbon gains of their plot, but also at the very beginning of their project, for the excess carbon which is already there. This is calculated by comparing the carbon of the plot to a regional average.
The problem, says forest ecologist Grayson Badgley, is that tree species can vary wildly from patch to patch in each region. Some forests thus seem particularly rich in carbon, but this is not because they have been spared from logging in the past, but simply because of the tree species naturally present. In other words, it is not the promoter’s good practices that are rewarded.
“This overestimates climate benefits,” says Badgley, a scientist with CarbonPlan, a California-based nonprofit dedicated to climate policy analysis. According to a study published in October 2021, of the signatories of which he is a part, the initial carbon value of projects to improve forestry practices is overvalued by 30%.
A third study, published in August 2022, notes a weakness in the permanence of California’s forest offset credits.
According to the protocol, the trees must sequester carbon for at least 100 years, but obviously fires, droughts and disease will kill some of the trees by then. To mitigate these risks, the promoters contribute to a “reserve” of credits with approximately 13% of their credits: one draws from it when a project is amputated by a disaster.
However, according to this third study, in which Mr. Badgley also participated, the forest fires emptied the reserve of credits much more quickly than expected. In a decade, they have exhausted almost a fifth of the reserve supposed to last a century, of which almost all of the credits set aside to ward off the risk of fire. And, with climate change, there will be even more forest fires.
The Quebec government remains confident
The government agency responsible for the carbon market in California has challenged the study that the initial carbon credits of forestry projects are issued in excess. According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), this study does not consist of an “evaluation” of the program, but of a “different method” of calculation, which has its own limits in a real context of application. CARB has, however, begun a process of reviewing the fire risks that will affect forests in the coming century.
The Ministry of the Environment, the Fight against Climate Change, Wildlife and Parks of Quebec is behind the position of its Californian partners in this file. “Quebec has full confidence in the quality of all the offset credits issued by the California Air Resources Board,” it says. Duty.
Grayson Badgley, he persists and signs: the calculation method of the Californian protocol must be modified. And, in general, when it comes to forestry offset credits, he is disappointed. “There is no doubt that protecting large intact forests is a great idea: these forests generate enormous benefits in terms of carbon and biodiversity. However, he said, I’m not sure that this carbon should be used to justify continued CO emissions.2. »