New study shows California offsetting produces carbon 'ghost credits'

[Kathleen McAfee]

In case you missed it - This week saw the release of 3 linked publications that show how the offsetting part of California cap-&-trade program creates 'ghost credits' that allow Chevron, PG&E, and other major emitters to release more greenhouse gasses than our climate law would otherwise allow.

The rules of the program let project developers game the system by deceptively claiming that the trees on forested parcels of land are storing more carbon and are in greater danger of being logged than is actually the case.

ProPublica reporter Lisa Song and MIT's James explain how credits worth mega-millions have been paid to forest owners, including tribes in California and New Mexico. They site a new scientific paper pre-print (by Bay Area scientists Barbara Haya, Danny Cullenward, and others) and a related web site showing how these payouts are based cherry-picked data and lax oversight by state regulators (CARB). 

CARB, the offsetting entrepreneurs, and tribal spokespeople defend the policy, often highlighting good things some owners have does with the funds such as the Yurok buying back lands that were taken from them. But if our public policy is to promote such activities, shouldn't we be supporting them directly instead of making good forest management dependent on allowing Chevron, etc. to continue to cook the planet?

(This was my point in the op ed I wrote in CalMatters 1 month ago.)

Happy May Day!

Kathy

--

Kathleen McAfee
Professor, International Relations

San Francisco State University

kmc...@sfsu.edu