Listeners to the podcast are very likely familiar with the concept of carbon offsetting or carbon credits.  This is the idea that a company that pollutes in the course of its business practice can purchase carbon credits, often in the form of supporting tree planting somewhere in the world, with a promise that doing this will remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, to “offset” or balance-out the company’s carbon pollution.   This has become a billion-dollar global market.

But in recent years this practice has experienced a crisis of credibility.  An increasing number of investigations and studies have eroded confidence in carbon markets. The carbon offsets for some projects were over-counted, while others didn’t actually prevent deforestation, and still other carbon credit forest projects appear to be much more vulnerable to wildfires or insect outbreaks than previously believed.

So, what is to be done? Can the carbon offsetting approach be fixed?  Or, is a totally different approach needed? 

Libby Blanchard, a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the Wilkes Center, and the School of Biological Sciences here at the U of U, says that billions of crucial funding would best be spent on a contribution approach for effective forest efforts that don't undermine urgent climate action. She recently co-authored an op-ed with other scholars in the Stanford Social Innovation Review journal to make the case for this new approach. 

wilkescenter.utah.edu/podcast/14-should-contributions-replace-carbon-offsets/