4 ms·

https://verra.org/verra-response-guardian-rainforest-carbon-offsets/ https://verra.org/verra-response-guardian-rainforest-carbon-... Also you are conflating pr

https://verra.org/verra-response-guardian-rainforest-carbon-offsets/ https://verra.org/verra-response-guardian-rainforest-carbon-... Also you are conflating projects outside of NA and inside of NA. >>Deforestation carbon credits from Verra are accepted on California's carbon market and rely on (imo) pretty much fake estimates. imo // "Pretty much fake estimates". ?? Do you have any relevant experience or knowledge in the sector or are you just spouting off?

whimsicalism 3y ago
Here is an article in a Nature journal published today indicating that additionality is basically non-existent for California's forestry offset program [0] > [verra link] I was not aware of the reporting by the Guardian, so can't comment on that specifically but was familiar with the research work of West et al. I found West's arguments convincing and the arguments in this response less so (worth noting that Verra's CEO resigned in disgrace a few months after this was published). Regardless it would be easy for Verra to conduct an RCT to actually measure additionality. And yet they do not.. > imo // "Pretty much fake estimates". ?? Do you have any relevant experience or knowledge in the sector or are you just spouting off? I work on causal inference and have read a number of forestry projects descriptions on how they estimate additionality when I was looking into how to offset my own carbon footprint. What I read was clearly insufficient for the causal claims they were making, which led me to West et al's research using synthetic controls. Regardless, I don't find the appeal to credentialism that convincing when you can't name a single forestry project that has a solid causal estimate for their additionality. And that's before we get into the other CARB-certified projects, like CFC destruction with Verra's baselines that assume 100% violation of the clean air act in the absence of intervention. > Also you are conflating projects outside of NA and inside of NA. This is a fair objection to the West study applying to California's market - but it is the same organization certifying the carbon here as the one that has engaged in verging-on-fraudulent additionality estimates. I also linked additional, recent research specific to California's market. [0]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00984-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00984-2
- boringg 3y ago
  I appreciate your responses. I did scan West's article and found it actually not convincing. As I understand it he argues that because an old forest breakeven point for carbon offsets is 50$ / tonne the thought that offsets at 20 $/tonne isn't actually protecting the forest equates to that forest being already protected and thus there being no additional value for the offsets.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    e: Oh I see, you were talking about the California article I linked, which is by a different author. That said, I think the section you are discussing is just about potential flaws in the causal model and why they think it is unlikely, not their primary reasoning. Maybe a different article, the one I am talking about conducted a causal estimate of the carbon averted using synthetic controls, not at all the argument that you are stating [0]. Again, all of this debate would be easy to end with a controlled trial that non-profits like Verra will never do because of what they would reveal. Do you work in this industry? I am curious if this is a case of 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.' [0]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.03354.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.03354.pdf
    - boringg 3y ago
      >> Again, all of this debate would be easy to end with a controlled trial that non-profits like Verra will never do because of what they would reveal. I think most debates could be ended with a scientific experiment - likely never going to happen due to the inconvenience of it. And no I don't work in the industry but I find that people paint the whole industry with one color - which I find disingenuous. Or they have an opinion based one article in the news which provide a very obtuse perspective.

whimsicalism 3y ago

Here is an article in a Nature journal published today indicating that additionality is basically non-existent for California's forestry offset program [0] > [verra link] I was not aware of the reporting by the Guardian, so can't comment on that specifically but was familiar with the research work of West et al. I found West's arguments convincing and the arguments in this response less so (worth noting that Verra's CEO resigned in disgrace a few months after this was published). Regardless it would be easy for Verra to conduct an RCT to actually measure additionality. And yet they do not.. > imo // "Pretty much fake estimates". ?? Do you have any relevant experience or knowledge in the sector or are you just spouting off? I work on causal inference and have read a number of forestry projects descriptions on how they estimate additionality when I was looking into how to offset my own carbon footprint. What I read was clearly insufficient for the causal claims they were making, which led me to West et al's research using synthetic controls. Regardless, I don't find the appeal to credentialism that convincing when you can't name a single forestry project that has a solid causal estimate for their additionality. And that's before we get into the other CARB-certified projects, like CFC destruction with Verra's baselines that assume 100% violation of the clean air act in the absence of intervention. > Also you are conflating projects outside of NA and inside of NA. This is a fair objection to the West study applying to California's market - but it is the same organization certifying the carbon here as the one that has engaged in verging-on-fraudulent additionality estimates. I also linked additional, recent research specific to California's market. [0]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00984-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00984-2

boringg 3y ago
I appreciate your responses. I did scan West's article and found it actually not convincing. As I understand it he argues that because an old forest breakeven point for carbon offsets is 50$ / tonne the thought that offsets at 20 $/tonne isn't actually protecting the forest equates to that forest being already protected and thus there being no additional value for the offsets.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  e: Oh I see, you were talking about the California article I linked, which is by a different author. That said, I think the section you are discussing is just about potential flaws in the causal model and why they think it is unlikely, not their primary reasoning. Maybe a different article, the one I am talking about conducted a causal estimate of the carbon averted using synthetic controls, not at all the argument that you are stating [0]. Again, all of this debate would be easy to end with a controlled trial that non-profits like Verra will never do because of what they would reveal. Do you work in this industry? I am curious if this is a case of 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.' [0]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.03354.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.03354.pdf
  - boringg 3y ago
    >> Again, all of this debate would be easy to end with a controlled trial that non-profits like Verra will never do because of what they would reveal. I think most debates could be ended with a scientific experiment - likely never going to happen due to the inconvenience of it. And no I don't work in the industry but I find that people paint the whole industry with one color - which I find disingenuous. Or they have an opinion based one article in the news which provide a very obtuse perspective.