“The implications of this analysis are huge. Companies are using credits to make claims of reducing emissions when most of these credits don’t represent emissions reductions at all.”

Once again, corporations are gaming ‘the system’. Applying “false and misleading results” to a PR campaign that paints them as heroes of the zero-emission environment, when they are no such thing. Then there are the truly environmentally concerned being victimized and played by their good intentions with marginal or negative effect, when they are led to believe the opposite. So even a step in the right sustainable/conservation direction has bad actors and suspect findings to profit, whether it’s ethically, financially or both. Depressing. One step forward, 13 back…

If the companies paid good money, its Verra who is fraudulent. Unless the actual cost of a good offset is much higher than what the companies paid, in which case they were complicit.

This is why auditing jobs are not bullshit jobs.

There is no “economicing” out of the climate crisis, offset schemes are never going to work, it’s just a way to pass the parcel to someone else while making money on passing the parcel.

The only viable solution is to throttle back the use of fossil fuels drastically to the barest minimum and stop land clearing for farms and new housing.

Human greed is killing this planet.

The capitalist “solution” was bullshit?

I’m shocked

i just want to know what the plan is to get all the poor countries to participate? unless they participate, none of this will work.

SS:

I think this is an important finding to discuss, as we need to be able to objectively determine what measures are effective and which are not when it comes to combatting climate change on a global scale. It seems that several studies are now showing that the carbon offsetting touted by the concept's largest provider is largely just an example of "greenwashing" that is hardly doing anything relatively speaking. It seems pretty evident that offsetting, at least in this format, isn't gonna be much of a help going into the future in terms of effectively helping the environment. More empirical solutions rather than this seemingly indirect/ineffective movement of money to offsetting projects are the answer, if anything I am suspecting that carbon offsetting is largely just PR to try and deflect attention away from the systemic issues of the capitalist system, a way to keep on producing and producing and growing without making the systemic changes required.

​

>The two studies from the international group of researchers found just eight out of 29 Verra-approved projects where further analysis was possible showed evidence of meaningful deforestation reductions.
>
>The journalists were able to do further analysis on those projects, comparing the estimates made by the offsetting projects with the results obtained by the scientists. The analysis indicated about 94% of the credits the projects produced should not have been approved.
>
>Credits from 21 projects had no climate benefit, seven had between 98% and 52% fewer than claimed using Verra’s system, and one had 80% more impact, the investigation found.
>
>Separately, the study by the University of Cambridge team of 40 Verra projects found that while a number had stopped some deforestation, the areas were extremely small. Just four projects were responsible for three-quarters of the total forest that was protected.
>
>The journalists again analysed these results more closely and found that, in 32 projects where it was possible to compare Verra’s claims with the study finding, baseline scenarios of forest loss appeared to be overstated by about 400%. Three projects in Madagascar have achieved excellent results and have a significant impact on the figures. If those projects are not included, the average inflation is about 950%.
>
>The studies used different methods and time periods, looked at different ranges of projects, and the researchers said no modelling approach is ever perfect, acknowledging limitations in each study. However, the data showed broad agreement on the lack of effectiveness of the projects compared with the Verra-approved predictions.

Bummer - my company make a lot of noise about offsets. They are mentioned in the article. Seems like the investment is not paying off...

The following submission statement was provided by /u/Portalrules123:

SS:

I think this is an important finding to discuss, as we need to be able to objectively determine what measures are effective and which are not when it comes to combatting climate change on a global scale. It seems that several studies are now showing that the carbon offsetting touted by the concept's largest provider is largely just an example of "greenwashing" that is hardly doing anything relatively speaking. It seems pretty evident that offsetting, at least in this format, isn't gonna be much of a help going into the future in terms of effectively helping the environment. More empirical solutions rather than this seemingly indirect/ineffective movement of money to offsetting projects are the answer, if anything I am suspecting that carbon offsetting is largely just PR to try and deflect attention away from the systemic issues of the capitalist system, a way to keep on producing and producing and growing without making the systemic changes required.

​

>The two studies from the international group of researchers found just eight out of 29 Verra-approved projects where further analysis was possible showed evidence of meaningful deforestation reductions.
>
>The journalists were able to do further analysis on those projects, comparing the estimates made by the offsetting projects with the results obtained by the scientists. The analysis indicated about 94% of the credits the projects produced should not have been approved.
>
>Credits from 21 projects had no climate benefit, seven had between 98% and 52% fewer than claimed using Verra’s system, and one had 80% more impact, the investigation found.
>
>Separately, the study by the University of Cambridge team of 40 Verra projects found that while a number had stopped some deforestation, the areas were extremely small. Just four projects were responsible for three-quarters of the total forest that was protected.
>
>The journalists again analysed these results more closely and found that, in 32 projects where it was possible to compare Verra’s claims with the study finding, baseline scenarios of forest loss appeared to be overstated by about 400%. Three projects in Madagascar have achieved excellent results and have a significant impact on the figures. If those projects are not included, the average inflation is about 950%.
>
>The studies used different methods and time periods, looked at different ranges of projects, and the researchers said no modelling approach is ever perfect, acknowledging limitations in each study. However, the data showed broad agreement on the lack of effectiveness of the projects compared with the Verra-approved predictions.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/10fchak/revealed_more_than_90_of_rainforest_carbon/j4vww3g/

[removed]

I think it's more interesting that companies and governments are using pseudo science to "stabilize" climate.

IMO stopping deforestation shouldn't be used as credits/carbon offset. Only planting more trees in areas with high CO2 in atmosphere should count.

If you look at the money and political grandstanding over the last 15 years, do you really not think the green movement isn't rife with corruption? How many times has it been claimed that New York is suppose to be under water? How many times has it been claimed that glacier melts by now would have raised the ocean by feet? Have you not watched Al Gore and John Kerry at Davos and not think you're watching a comedy show?

The global billionaire and political elite fly to conferences on private jets yet we're suppose to believe we're all going to die unless we peasants citizens make sacrifices while they drink wine, eat cheese, and keep company with prostitutes in Davos. I'm a skeptic but go ahead and call me what you want.

This happening should surprise nobody - if the system can be abused, someone is going to abuse it.

If your monitoring and vetting system allows companies to perpetuate fraud and mislead customers with falsified reports and near zero risk of auditing or other checks on actual delivery of intangible goods, then your monitoring system is grossly inadequate.

Anyone surprised that we are being lied to by these companies? It fits their pattern of greed and deceit...