Large and persistent social risks to forest carbon projects
Levine, J. I.; Blanchard, L.; Cullenward, D.; Anderegg, W. R. L.
Show abstract
Despite the popularity of carbon credits as a tool to offset greenhouse gas emissions, there are growing concerns over whether their climate mitigation claims are robust. Most attention has focused on natural risks to forest carbon projects, such as wildfire, while social risks (e.g., those driven by fraud, mismanagement, and land conflicts) remain largely unquantified. Here we analyze 244 forest-based carbon projects to assess the vulnerability of the voluntary carbon market to social risks and find that projects systematically underestimate their risk of failure. Even under optimistic assumptions, projects are roughly twice as likely to fail within 25 years as their self-assessed risk implies over a 100-year horizon. Projecting these trends forward, we show that credits issued to failed projects could exceed the reserves registries hold to mitigate these risks within 1-2 decades. Overall, our results suggest stronger mechanisms and reserves are needed to ensure carbon credits deliver the promised climate benefits.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Intersecting vulnerabilities: Climatic and demographic contributions to future population exposure to Aedes-borne viruses in the United States 90%
- Land-use change from food to energy: meta-analysis unravels effects of bioenergy on biodiversity and amenity 89%
- Positive effects of projected climate change on post-disturbance forest regrowth rates in northeastern North American boreal forests 88%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Are indigenous territories effective natural climate solutions? A neotropical analysis using matching methods and geographic discontinuity designs. 92%
- The role of climate change education on individual lifetime carbon emissions 91%
- Mitigation Strategies and Compliance in the Covid-19 Fight; How Much Compliance is Enough? 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.