Carbon scam exposed in Bolivia

Chris Lang

31 October 2009

Greenpeace recently released a report that clearly shows why Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) offset projects will neither address climate change nor stop deforestation.

Carbon scam in Bolivia

The report, Carbon Scam: Noel Kempff Climate Action Project and the Push for Sub-national Forest Offsets, looked in detail at the Noel Kempff Climate Action Project in Bolivia.

It questioned the claims made by the project developers about “leakage” (where deforestation stopped in one area simply moves to another forest), “additionality” (that the carbon stored is additional to what would be stored without the project), the permanence of the carbon storage and the ability of the project developers to measure accurately the amount of carbon stored.

In the project’s 12 years, estimates of the emissions reduction have fallen almost 90%, from about 55 million to 5.8 million metric tonnes of CO2.

The project started in 1996, when The Nature Conservancy and Fundacion Amigos de la Naturaleza created the Noel Kempff project.

The next year, the Bolivian government signed an agreement with three massively polluting energy corporations: American Electric Power (AEP) BP-Amoco (BP) and Pacificorp. Under the agreement, the corporations would pay to protect almost 650,000 hectares of rainforest for 30 years.

In return, the carbon offsets generated allowed the companies to continue polluting.

The Noel Kempff project is one of the best known “avoided deforestation” projects in the world. On its website, The Nature Conservancy claims the project is an “example of REDD success” that “simultaneously addresses climate change, conserves biodiversity and brings sustainable benefits to local communities”.

Roman Czebiniak, a co-author of the Greenpeace report, said: “This report should end any talk that sub-national carbon offset projects can be used to reliably cut carbon emissions.

“The idea that companies could continue burning oil and coal so long as they set up a park in a developing country sounds ludicrous. We have shown that it is ludicrous on paper as well.”

The Noel Kempff project is extremely weak in several areas. The project investors used an estimate of 15% for project leakage in submissions to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the US Congress.

Yet Greenpeace points out that a 2002 report by Winrock International estimates that project leakage could be as high as 42-60%.

Leakage is measured on only one area south-west of the project. Leakage elsewhere is simply ignored.

The third party auditor of the project, SGS, was suspended by the UN in September. It was unable to prove its staff had properly inspected the projects it was accrediting for carbon trading or even that the staff were properly qualified to do so.

Permanence is almost impossible to guarantee. Drought, forest fires, forest die-back, pest infestation, disease or political changes could all have a dramatic impact on the forest.

In a rapidly changing climate, such threats become more likely.

If AEP, BP-Amoco and Pacificorp have already used the project to offset their emissions and the forests were destroyed, this would double the volume of CO2 emissions.

Greenpeace said between 1997 and 2004, “AEP, Pacificorp, and BP reported about 7.4 million tons of carbon offsets from the Noel Kempff project to the US Department of Energy. This is considerably more than the amount verified for the 30 year project: 5.8 million tons.”

Greenpeace said investors “may have claimed millions of tonnes of CO2 emissions reductions that never occurred”.

The Nature Conservancy has claimed to be working with and providing benefits for local communities.

However, one villager told Greenpeace about a herd of cows given to the community to try to provide “alternative livelihoods”. The cows were European and unable to survive in Bolivia.

“They all died in the end”, the villager said. “The cows were so expensive that a whole herd of local breeds could have been bought for the price of a single one.”

Between 1998 and 2009, US electricity utilities spent a staggering US$1.16 billion lobbying the US Congress on issues such as carbon trading and offsets. In 2008, AES spent $11 million lobbying Congress.

Czebiniak said: “In order to protect the climate we need to stop burning coal and stop burning down our forests — not do one at the expense of the other.

“The objective of a REDD mechanism is to establish a means for the international community to make substantial advances in fighting climate change by stopping deforestation.

“REDD is not meant to provide low-cost, low-quality ‘sub-prime’ carbon offsets to oil and coal companies, or to create a new playground for banks and carbon traders.”

The Nature Conservancy made a pathetic attempt to respond on its website on October 15: “Getting REDD right and doing it at national scales is essential for making forests a part of the climate solution.

“The Nature Conservancy is proud to have had the courage to take the first steps with the Noel Kempff Climate Action project.”

Greenpeace has exposed the Noel Kempff project for what it is: a carbon scam. The purpose of the project is to allow pollution to continue in the US.

American Electric Power chief executive Michael Morris made this clear when he told the October 14 Washington Post: “When Greenpeace says the only reason American Electric Power wants to do this is because it doesn’t want to shut down its coal plants, my answer is, ‘You bet, because our coal plants serve our customers very cost-effectively.’”

We would perhaps not expect anything else from the biggest coal-burner in the US. But the Nature Conservancy is supposed to be an environmental organisation.

It has been caught REDD-handed, aiding and abetting a climate crime.

Source: Green Left

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: