In 1987, Sheryl Sturges was Director of Strategic Planning at AES Corporation, the US-based energy company. AES was planning to build a new 181 MW coal-fired power plant in Connecticut. But the company’s CEO, Roger W. Sant, was worried about climate change.
A recent article by Kate Wheeling in Pacific Standard magazine highlights four ways that the aviation sector’s carbon market proposals could undermine the Paris Agreement. The article points out that, “as the rest of the world is cutting back, aviation’s climate plan includes increasing emissions.”
In 1996, Uganda’s National Forest Authority awarded a 50 year licence covering an area of land just over 9,000 hectares to a Norwegian company called Green Resources. Twenty years later, local communities are still feeling the impacts of the company’s industrial tree plantations.
On 7 October 2016, the General Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) announced its plans to set up a mechanism to offset its ever increasing greenhouse gas emissions. The Global Market-Based Measure is planned to start in 2021, but all the details (such as which carbon credits might be elligible) are still to be agreed.
“The aim of reducing the emissions from forest destruction and degradation caused by industrial agriculture, logging, mining for fossil resources, etc. is today decisive to the survival of humankind and our planet. However, when the tool to achieve this aim is the trading of emission credits (offsets), we arrive at the wrong solutions.”
In September 2015, a meeting took place in New York between Per Pharo and Marte Sendstad of Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative, and Nigel Purvis from the Washington DC-based consulting firm, Climate Advisers.
The International Civil Aviation Authority is currently considering how it can continue to expand while appearing to address greenhouse gas emissions from flying. Predictably, for a massively polluting industry with huge plans to expand, buying cheap offsets looks very attractive.
Yvette Aguilar is an expert and adviser on the issue of climate change of El Salvador Round-Table and the Friedrich Ebert Foundation in El Salvador. She submitted this Guest Post looking at the way proponents are recycling REDD under a range of different labels.
California’s Air Resources Board is planning to allow REDD offsets in its cap and trade scheme, Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32). Friends of the Earth USA has sent out an action alert asking people in California to tell the Chair of Air Resources Board, Mary Nicholls, to reject REDD.
Green Resources is a Norwegian company that claims to be “Africa’s largest forestation company.” The company has established a total of 45,000 hectares of industrial plantations in Africa. It also generates carbon credits from its plantations.
Last week, REDD-Monitor looked at the aviation industry’s plans to offset its ever-growing emissions using REDD credits. Kevin Conrad and the Coalition for Rainforest Nations are behind the plan. It’s supported by nine mainly US-based NGOs. And it’s opposed by more than 80 NGOs internationally.