Thread by @carbonplanorg

Thanks for asking, @Albatrossoar and @hausfather! It’s always good to go straight to the source when it comes to offsets, so we’ll offer some quick thoughts on what @Shell_Canada is doing. (1/15)

https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1327031217540136965

Here’s @Shell_Canada 's press release FAQ page, which describes their “Drive Carbon Neutral” program. For just a few pennies a liter (= less than a dime per gallon), Shell Canada promises to fully offset drivers’ GHG emissions. (2/15) shell.ca/en_ca/motorist…

The program lists three forest projects that generate carbon credits — one in Canada, one in Indonesia, and one in Peru. Only the Canadian project has any technical details on the Shell website, so we’ll focus on that one. (3/15)

The Canadian effort is called the Darkwoods Forest Carbon Project. It’s an “improved forest management” or IFM project, which requires a forest owner to change their timber harvesting practices to store more carbon. (4/15)
shell.ca/en_ca/motorist…

Darkwoods follows an IFM offsets protocol developed by Verra, which hosts the project documentation here. (5/15) registry.verra.org/app/projectDet…

So what’s up with Darkwoods? In 2008, the Nature Conservancy of Canada purchased this British Columbia forest from its prior owner and applied for carbon credits. Details here. (6/15)
registry.verra.org/mymodule/Proje…

So far, so good. We have a conservation NGO buying land to slow or stop timber harvesting. Sounds like a plan to avoid emissions and sequester more CO₂! (7/15)

But there’s a catch. The previous owner also cared about conservation, so they allowed only modest timber harvesting and set aside a full ⅓ of the timber land for conservation. (8/15)

According to the carbon credit application, the Nature Conservancy of Canada didn’t want to continue this land management practice. But if you thought this NGO was going to halt all harvesting, keep reading. (9/15)

Rather than slow or stop harvesting, the Nature Conservancy of Canada claimed that, were it not for carbon offset income, the NGO would set *aggressive new 15-year timber harvest cycles* across the entire property. (10/15)

It’s hard to believe that the Nature Conservancy of Canada was going to cut down these trees, especially after buying the land from a conservation-minded owner. (11/15)

But if the Nature Conservancy of Canada wasn’t going to cut down those trees, then the carbon benefits sold to @Shell_Canada 's customers are inflated. (12/15)

That’s because carbon offsets credit the difference between what actually happened (which we can see) and what didn’t happen (which we can’t). Exaggerating the counterfactual scenario inflates the credits a project generates and undermines the buyer’s climate goals. (13/15)

So if you are a Canadian motorist who wants to make sure that your modest financial contribution compensates a land-use decision made by a conservation NGO 12 years ago, then @Shell_Canada has a program for you! (14/15)

But if you’re someone who wants to see climate funds go towards new or transformative projects, read the fine print — if it’s available. (We only have information on one of the three projects in this program.) Transparency matters. (15/15)