• Who We Are
    • The Climate Trust
    • Climate Trust Capital
    • Achievements
    • Leadership And Board Of Directors
  • What We Do
    • Action
    • Impact
    • Case Studies
  • Financials
  • Media
    • Blog
    • News & Press
The Climate Trust | Revisiting the Importance of Reductions

Revisiting the Importance of Reductions

Forestry, Scorcher

Reduction credits (also referred to as avoided emissions) are a key feature of Article 6 negotiations underway at the 27th COP in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt [1] which may carryover to future COPs [2]. As the rules for international carbon trading are being finalized, the UN has requested a formal assessment of whether credits generated through “emissions avoidance and conservation enhancement activities” will qualify under the mechanisms listed under Articles 6.2 and 6.4 of the Agreement [3]. At the same time, TCT has observed that some buyers favor removals over reductions, which has resulted in lower prices for forest-based reduction credits compared to their removal counterparts. However, reductions are critically important because they are often inseparable from nature-based removals, and they may have a greater impact on the atmosphere than removals do.

Reduction credits are generated from projects that avoid the future release of GHG emissions, such as projects focused on renewable energy or REDD+ [4]. In contrast, removal credits represent a tonne of CO2e that has been removed from the atmosphere and stored in another reservoir (e.g. a new forest or in technology-based carbon storages). TCT has made the point that these two credit types are intimately linked in IFM projects, and forest and climate scientists are clear that reducing emissions from deforestation should be a priority. In a Q&A with Climate Feedback, Dr. Karen Holl, professor at U.C. Santa Cruz communicated that “As a restoration ecologist who has spent over 25 years studying how to restore forests, I know that it is nearly impossible to restore exactly what was there before, and it makes much more ecological and economic sense to protect existing forests so that should be the priority. Yet, large scale forest clearing continues worldwide.”

Additionally, a study published last year in Nature Climate Change challenged the assumption that “one tonne in equals one tonne out” with respect to GHG emissions and removals [5]. Results from that study highlighted the asymmetry in Earth’s climate system by showing that a tonne of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere raises atmospheric CO2 more than a tonne of CO2 removal can lower it.

Valuing reduced and avoided emissions remains an important function of carbon markets, and high-integrity credits of this type from natural climate solutions should be included along with removals in the Article 6 mechanisms.

[1] Policy brief by White & Case
[2] COP27 Update: Carbon Pulse
[3] Decisions relating to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement
[4] Debate on avoidance and REDD+ carbon projects to dominate the next UN Climate Conference – S&P Global
[5] Zickfeld et al (2021) Asymmetry in the climate–carbon cycle response to positive and negative CO2 emissions.
Tags
Adaptation
Aggregation
American Carbon Registry
Biochar
Blue Carbon
C-AGG
California Air Resources Board
California Carbon Info
Cap and Invest
carbon offset standards
Carbon Pricing
Carbon-Pulse
Clean Power Plan
Climate Action Reserve
Climate Bonds
Conservation Finance Network
Corporate Social Responsibility
CORSIA
Culture
Dairy Digester
Ecosystem Marketplace
Edible Portland
Energy Central
Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Justice
EPAF
Farm Power Northwest
GreenBiz
IPCC
Job Announcement
Leadership
Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Milestone
Oregon Carbon Dioxide Standard
Oregon Clean Fuels Program
Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council
Oregon Global Warming Commission
Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy
Paris
Portland General Electric
REDD
Renewable Fuel Standard
Renewable Identification Numbers
Request For Proposal
RGGI
Rice
Risk Management
Scientific American
Social Cost of Carbon
Supply Chain
Sustainable Business Oregon
Triple Pundit
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
Verified Carbon Standard
Western Climate Initiative
Recent Comments
Leave a comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT
Proud Member Partners in Diversity
  • DONATE
  • CAREERS
  • CONTACT

©2020 The Climate Trust. Crafted by ILLUSIO