30/10/21 10:31 Opinion | Making Carbon Markets Work - The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/29/opinion/carbon-trading-emissions-glasgow.html

PETER COY

If a Tree Doesn’t Fall in the Forest …

Oct. 29, 2021

By Peter Coy
Opinion Writer

We’re all familiar with the riddle about a tree falling in the forest and making or not making a sound. Starting this
weekend in Scotland, world leaders, diplomats and climate activists will be wrestling with their own version of the
riddle: What does it mean when a tree does not fall in the forest?

A tree that does not fall in the forest continues to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, helping protect
humanity from climate change. The riddle is who, if anyone, should get credit for the tree’s survival. To answer that
question, you need to know whether the tree was going to be cut down in the first place. If it wasn’t, it seems
dishonest to claim to have saved it. Yet people will be tempted to take credit anyway.

If you understand this problem, you will understand one of the main debates at the 26th United Nations Climate
Change Conference of the Parties, or COP26, a meeting to combat global warming taking place in Glasgow from
Oct. 31 through Nov. 12.

Economists like the idea of using markets to control carbon emissions because markets provide lots of bang for the
buck. For example, Switzerland recently reached agreements with Georgia, Ghana, Peru and Senegal in which it
will effectively pay those countries to reduce their emissions and then claim the reductions for itself to help meet its
national target for emissions reductions under the Paris Agreement of 2015. It’s more efficient to cut emissions in
those lower-income countries, where there’s plenty of low-hanging fruit (like replacing inefficient cook stoves),
than in Switzerland itself, which has run short of cheap and easy ways to reduce emissions.

But governments need to make sure the markets are doing what they’re supposed to. Otherwise you run into the
tree-in-the-forest problem: countries claiming credits for saving trees that didn’t need saving. That’s an issue in
rich nations as well as poor ones. The San Francisco-based environmental group CarbonPlan said this year that
forest protection efforts in California were over-credited by about $400 million. An investigation last year by
Bloomberg Green found that the Nature Conservancy, the world’s biggest environmental group, was helping big
U.S. corporations claim credit for the preservation of forests that were already well preserved. (In June, the Nature
Conservancy said that an internal review did not discover irregularities but “found opportunities to improve our
approach.”)

Negotiators in Glasgow will be wrestling with how to implement Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, the last part of
the accord to be finalized. Article 6 governs the international trading of emission credits. The problem? “Article 6 is
one of the least accessible and complex concepts of the global accord,” the World Resources Institute wrote in 2019.
It added that “without the right rules in place, Article 6 could actually weaken” countries’ commitments to reduce
emissions and increase global emissions.

One way Article 6 could fail is if it allows so-called double counting. A project to protect the Amazon, for instance,
could be claimed by both Brazil and the rich nation that funded it.

Another form of failure would be the lack of “additionality,” as in the tree example. Let’s say a country decided to
build a wind farm instead of a coal plant because the economics were better. It probably shouldn’t get credit toward
its national goal for not burning coal that it didn’t intend to burn anyway.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/29/opinion/carbon-trading-emissions-glasgow.html 1/3
30/10/21 10:31 Opinion | Making Carbon Markets Work - The New York Times

“Leakage” is a related concern: If you pay one landowner not to cut down trees, that could cause prices of trees to
go up and induce other landowners to cut down trees, leaving no net improvement.

Another conundrum: How much credit should countries get for emissions-reductions projects that were launched
in the past, under the so-called Clean Development Mechanism, which is defunct?

OPINION CONVERSATION

The climate, and the world, are changing. What challenges will the
future bring, and how should we respond to them?
What should our leaders be doing?

Al Gore, the 45th vice president of the United States, finds reasons for optimism
in the Biden presidency.

What are the worst climate risks in your country?

Select a country, and we'll break down the climate hazards it faces.

Where are Americans suffering most?

Our maps, developed with experts, show where extreme heat is causing the
most deaths in the U.S.

What does climate devastation look like?

In Sept. 2020, Michael Benson studied detailed satellite imagery. Here's the
earth that he saw — and the one he wants to see.

No wonder expectations for a breakthrough in Scotland are low. Carsten Warnecke, a founding partner of the
NewClimate Institute in Cologne, Germany, told me he’s lost faith in global trading of emissions credits as a
solution to climate change. He says rich countries should focus on reducing emissions at home while giving money
to poor countries to help them achieve reductions. (Under the Paris Agreement, rich countries are supposed to give
$100 billion a year, but they haven’t so far.)

Others share Warnecke’s pessimism. “If there are large financial flows across borders, you’re creating constituents
in developing countries that depend on financial flows and will lie and cheat and do everything they can to maintain
these flows,” says Gernot Wagner, a climate economist at New York University. And he says rich countries would
like to save money by claiming credit for cheap, low-quality credits abroad. “It’s in nobody’s interest to enforce
these rules,” he says.

Some are more hopeful. “There are clear benefits to having channels of climate finance to do things that otherwise
wouldn’t happen,” says Roman Kramarchuk, head of future energy analytics for S&P Global Platts. Zack Parisa, a
founder and the chief executive of Natural Capital Exchange, a forest carbon marketplace based in San Francisco,
says his company has developed standards and technology to guarantee that forest protection credits are
legitimate. But even Parisa says that protecting trees is only a partial fix. “We shouldn’t make the mistake of
thinking forests are an infinite sponge,” he says. “They’re the ambulance ride to the hospital.”

Today there are two categories of emissions trading. There’s one mandated by governments, known as compliance
markets, where countries or companies are given limits on emissions. Emitters can buy credits or allowances to
cover their excess emissions and can sell credits or allowances to make some money if they’re comfortably below
their ceilings. And there’s a voluntary carbon market, which is the one where companies like Delta Air Lines and
JPMorgan Chase buy credits to achieve their own emission-reduction targets. Under negotiation in Glasgow is how
to account for emissions trading across borders and how these efforts can count toward national targets.

I interviewed Sonja Gibbs, the head of sustainable finance at the Institute of International Finance. She said that
she and others have spent the past 18 months developing rules for the voluntary carbon market as part of an
organization called the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets. She’s optimistic that when it comes to
emission reduction credits, there will be a race to the top in quality, not a race to the bottom. “Once you have a
standard, there will be tremendous demand for it,” she says. “There won’t be demand for credits that don’t have
that recognition.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/29/opinion/carbon-trading-emissions-glasgow.html 2/3
30/10/21 10:31 Opinion | Making Carbon Markets Work - The New York Times

Eventually, Gibbs says, there will be a single global carbon market that combines today’s compliance and voluntary
markets: “What happens at COP26 will affect how the demand for credits will evolve. If countries set more
ambitious targets, there will be more demand for credits.”

And not just for trees that don’t fall in the forest.

The readers write

I was an engineer for over 30 years, and I agree that systems thinking and systems engineering are required to
adequately address complex systems. One of the problems with applying these practices is that they are complex
in and of themselves, and too often management systems are not aligned to reward this area of expertise.
Especially when multiple layers of managers get involved, there is a tendency to simplify messages, which is in
direct conflict with systems engineering. Unless executives get behind systems engineering, it will just be another
initiative that fails to gain traction within companies.

Sincerely,

Keith Harrell

Snohomish, Wash.

Quote of the day

“I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you
to act. I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if the house was on fire — because it is.”

— Greta Thunberg, climate activist, at the World Economic Forum, Jan. 25, 2019
Have feedback? Send a note to coy-newsletter@nytimes.com.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/29/opinion/carbon-trading-emissions-glasgow.html 3/3