This is the key problem with offsets. Residual emissions mean planting a forest the size of Australia to keep below 1.5c, and we don't have a spare Australia sitting around. If we use offsets for emissions we could instead cut, we'll need even _more_ land. 
https://twitter.com/CamillaHodgson/status/1432661417547767817
Now don't get me wrong - I'm totally up for planting an Australia (or India) worth of biodiverse forest, and having credits money pay for it. The problem is where.
That's why we need an offsets regulator, as proposed here: green-alliance.org.uk/The_flight_pat…
That's why we need an offsets regulator, as proposed here: green-alliance.org.uk/The_flight_pat…
Incidentally, we have a good idea where to prioritise for protecting nature and carbon - the bits in red below. nature.com/articles/s4155…
Unfortunately, those places we should protect are pretty well correlated with places we're deforesting (deforestation since 2000 in pink): globalforestwatch.org/map/?mainMap=e…
Why are we cutting down all these trees in places we know (and have often committed to, legally) protect? Trade in food is the major reason, with european countries having relatively high shares of overseas deforestation (often because we've deforested our countries already...)
Sorry, forgot to add the source: nature.com/articles/s4155…
All of this is to say that there's an inevitable conflict between food and fossil fuel offsets. Even if we get offset rules right (no fraud, good land rights, right treesin the right place, etc) the more land used to mop up fossil emissions we don't need to emit the less for food
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
