The crown corporation that buys carbon offsets for the province issued a call for projects this week that are already standard practice in the forest industry – leading some to question whether they should count as offsets at all.
On Wednesday, Pacific Carbon Trust (PAC) issued a $3 million call for forest-based offset projects in three areas: afforestation, seed selection and fertilization.
Marvin Eng of the B.C. Forest Practices Board, said the forest industry and ministry do fertilize, and that fertilization has been increasing, particularly in the interior, over the past couple of years. Eng said that while, 'class A' or superior quality seeds are not required, they are often selected as part of companies' operational practices "because you get better volume out of them. Whether or not it's carbon or timber volume."
Offering offsets for 'business as usual' is a waste of money, said Valerie Langer of ForestEthics.
She said that quality carbon offset guidelines require what's called additionality -- one of the most contentious issues in the carbon offset market.
"You have to prove that it wouldn't have been done otherwise. That the money actually made something additional happen for the climate," Langer said.
But according to the province's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act website, "Projects will not be excluded strictly on the basis of being "common practice" (i.e. not widely observed nor commonly carried out in the relevant sector and region), but the proponent must demonstrate financial, technological, or other obstacles to carrying out the project."
In a PAC press release, John Yap, minister of state for climate action, is quoted as saying, "B.C. has the best forest practices in the world, and Pacific Carbon Trust’s procurement of forest sequestration offsets will result in world-class offsets that produce real greenhouse gas reductions."
But it's because B.C.'s already good forest practices that makes these types of projects ineligible as far as the carbon offsetting firm Offsetters is concerned. Offsetters was the official carbon offset firm of the Vancouver Olympics and has clients around the world.
The forest sector, at least in B.C., is "not a sector that we see a whole lot of viability in, probably for the same types of reasons as ForestEthics," said Morgan McDonald, vice president of research and development.
Langer says that afforestation projects could be beneficial if they account for other environmental and ecosystem benefits, but says "the best option is avoided logging."
Colleen Kimmett reports for The Tyee.
11
Login or register to post comments
Frank
2 years ago
Carbon offsets?
Are they actually spending tax dollars on this BS?
1 in 4 kids are living in poverty and yet we've got money for new casinos and money laundering schemes like this?
Jesus H Christ
alive
2 years ago
Good point
"You have to prove that it wouldn't have been done otherwise. That the money actually made something additional happen for the climate," Langer said.
Exactly right!
That goes for most of those offsets they dream up!
The only real answer is to pollute less.
fanshaw
2 years ago
...and so it goes.
It never ceases to amaze me how the Chamber of Commerce....sorry, the BC Liberals, find ways to direct public money to private enterprise.
ReeferMadness
2 years ago
Subsidies
The Liberals don't like to admit that they need to subsidize the forest industry until it can get back on its feet. So, they're hiding subsidies by calling them carbon credits.
So much for transparency and accountability.
max von smartt
2 years ago
carbon scams
We need to consume less and pollute less for sure, but anthropogenic global warming is another big hoax like 911 was. Look to variations in solar energy cycles and our own planet's molten core with underwater volvanoes to explain climate flux. Water in the atmosphere is by far the greatest greenhouse gas which explains why the most rapid heat loss at night is during clear skies, not cloudy.
Sask Resident
2 years ago
money laundering schemes
Carbon offsets are either get rich schemes by a few well connected people or a way for the Mexicans and Taliban to launder money. Few carbon offset schemes in the world have made any difference or even done. One in Costa Rico has been sold 12 times under different names. The FBI is looking into some but I'm not sure if the Mounties are.
bonny
2 years ago
It's not simple to manage
[SPAM DELETED. -MODERATOR.]
Boreal
2 years ago
improved tree seed
Whatever one thinks about C credits for doing things in the forest that would happen anyhow, it's hilarious (in a sick way) that in the same week:
- Pacific Carbon Trust will support: "Select‐seed projects [that] focus on planting seedlings grown from seeds selected for specific traits, such as faster growth, increased timber volume and carbon content, and greater resistance to insects and disease"
- Key personnel involved in making the provincial tree-breeding program work are being laid off by the Ministry of Forests and Range.
freebear
2 years ago
Carbon Derivatives next!
Air for sale; get your air!
Province may as well by every citizen a pet rock for the good trading carbon will do!
dave49
2 years ago
The Pacific Carbon Trust is a black hole
As far as I can tell, the Pacific Carbon Trust is a black hole. There has been very little media coverage/investigation of this agency. I already suggested it to editor David Beers as a story topic.
The Trust is picking the pockets of health care and education. Basically the Liberals net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2010 policy for 'publicly-funded services' is a hidden budget cut for health care and education.
Waltz
2 years ago
Pat Bell's folly
Afforestation: Europe's Reckitt-Benckiser corporation afforested 25 square kilometres in and around Pat Bell's riding. This corporation didn't need one cent of BC taxpayer dollars to plant its trees. In any event, trees take a long time to capture carbon, so afforestation as a carbon offset project would be pretty risky with climate change pointing toward more pest infestations and wildfire.
Select Seed: Why would the government offer to pay a proponent for using seed that he would normally use? There will be no real gain in carbon sequestered. Using select seed is simply a part of reforestation.
Fertilization: This the only activity that might sequester carbon within a relatively short time. However, the problem is with the accounting for emissions to the atmosphere of green house gases associated with fertilizer which may render its application to be carbon neutral.