Relaxing rules on carbon markets would undermine climate action, scientists warn
By: Communications
Researchers have cautioned that well intended suggested changes to carbon markets risk worsening climate impacts if core safeguards are weakened.
Climate change, biodiversity loss and human rights are deeply interconnected challenges, often sharing solutions that can deliver shared benefits.
Responding to a recent comment article in the journal Nature Climate Change that calls for rethinking ‘additionality’ requirements in carbon markets to better recognise Indigenous stewardship and conservation, a group of scientists emphasise that disregarding this principle could lead to higher net carbon emissions, ecosystem degradation and increased social inequality - disproportionately affecting Indigenous peoples.
The principle of additionality means that emission credits cannot be generated by activities that would have happened under a business-as-usual scenario, for example the continued protection of existing carbon stores.
“Indigenous land stewardship has maintained intact ecosystems and vital carbon sinks for centuries or millennia,” said Dr Phil Williamson from UEA's School of Environmental Sciences, and first author of the Correspondence article published in response today in Nature Climate Change.
“We acknowledge that carbon crediting systems often reward restoration of previously degraded land while overlooking longstanding stewardship, and we recognise that such stewardship may not be able to continue indefinitely without dedicated support.
“However, we argue that carbon markets are not the appropriate mechanism to address this historical inequity. The primary purpose of carbon markets is to prevent dangerous climate change by reducing net greenhouse gas emissions as rapidly and efficiently as possible”.
While Indigenous stewardship of land and tidal wetlands is widely recognised as highly effective in protecting natural carbon stores, the authors stress that there are alternative ways to support this stewardship that do not result in increased net emissions.
These include public government programmes, private philanthropy, and non carbon market financial instruments, such as blue or green bonds and insurance products.
“Additionality is fundamental to the environmental integrity of carbon markets,” said co-author Dr Axel Michaelowa of the University of Zurich and Perspectives Climate Research, who has worked on the concept of additionality in international carbon markets over the last 20 years.
“If emission credits are awarded for activities that would have happened anyway - such as the continued existence of a natural carbon sink - new emissions are not truly offset, and net emissions increase.”
Coastal wetlands - including mangroves, saltmarsh and seagrass - can contribute to climate mitigation, but determining additionality in these ecosystems remains especially challenging, even for restoration projects. Providing carbon credits without demonstrable additionality, the authors warn, would undermine climate goals.
“Equity, biodiversity protection and climate mitigation must advance together,” said Dr Williamson. “But weakening the foundations of carbon markets risks worsening climate change and its social consequences.
“Non carbon market approaches offer viable, credible ways to support Indigenous stewardship while preserving the integrity of climate action.”
The Correspondence article ‘Carbon markets rule change would harm mitigation and Indigenous peoples’ is also co-authored by Dr Sophia Johannessen, of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. It is published in Nature Climate Change on May 11.
Related Articles
Climate policies are cutting carbon, new study shows
Countries with stricter and better-targeted climate policies cut carbon emissions faster, according to a major new study.
Read more
Blind spot in ocean carbon research could undermine global climate predictions
A major new report co-led by an academic at the University of East Anglia (UEA) reveals a critical lack of understanding about how the ocean absorbs and stores carbon.
Read more
Land-intensive carbon removal needs better siting to protect biodiversity
Significant reliance on land-based methods of carbon dioxide removal can protect biodiversity by avoiding climate impacts - but it could also compete with biodiversity protection unless there is better site selection, according to a new study.
Read more