"Australian human-induced native forest regeneration carbon offset projects have limited impact on changes in woody vegetation cover and carbon removals

Abstract

Carbon offsets are a widely used climate policy instrument that can reduce mitigation costs and generate important environmental and social co-benefits. However, they can increase emissions if they lack integrity. We analysed the performance of one of the world’s largest nature-based offset types: human-induced regeneration projects under Australia’s carbon offset scheme. The projects are supposed to involve the human-induced regeneration of permanent even-aged native forests through changes in land management. We analysed 182 projects and found limited evidence of regeneration in credited areas. Changes in woody vegetation cover within the areas that have been credited also largely mirror changes in adjacent comparison areas, outside the projects, suggesting the observable changes are predominantly attributable to factors other than the project activities. The results add to the growing literature highlighting the practical limitations of offsets and the potential for offset schemes to credit abatement that is non-existent, non-additional and potentially impermanent."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01313-x

So I wonder what this bust cost? ::)

The entire 'climate change' cult is a scam.

"Fortescue will no longer buy voluntary carbon offsets unless required by law, as offsets have been shown to be troubled by extensive concerns about quality, lack of additionality and an inability to deliver real reductions in emissions,’’ the company said in its annual ­report.

Fortescue’s shift, which has been underway since September last year, mirrors moves by other large corporates such as Telstra, which announced in June it would also stop using offsets in favour of direct action to reduce emissions.

BHP and Woolworths have also moved away from offsets.

lee wrote on Mar 28^th, 2024 at 1:10pm:

So I wonder what this bust cost? ::)

In your example, not much...

Take a moment to think about Australia's interior. Even though it is arid, semi-arid, and even woodland/grassland, there is a definite carbon sink. That is because Australia's interior is barely populated. Human activity would have minimum impact on increasing global warming.

To be quite honest, with the carbon emissions being pumped out in the southern hemisphere being 1/10th that of the northern hemisphere, the globe should really be thanking the Australians for keeping the country mostly a National Park and wildlife preserve.

The only way Australians can increase the amount of carbon sink effects on the country is to plant more halophyte trees around the Lake Eyre region. But not too close, as I don't want those saplings to drown during the last flood event.