# data[].attributes.headline
Paper on 'post-decisional logics of inaction' in climate policy

# data[].attributes.subject
Paper on 'post-decisional logics of inaction' in climate policy

# data[].attributes.body
A key idea put forward in week 2's lecture is that policymaking does not follow a linear, step-by-step formula or cycle, but is in fact a much messier, non-linear process without clear beginning or end. This article explores the idea that policies might even sometimes effectively be 'unmade' in the 'implementation phase', focusing on climate change policy in New Zealand and the UK.

# data[].attributes.headline
Some further food for thought on the climate knowledge-action gap

# data[].attributes.subject
Some further food for thought on the climate knowledge-action gap

# data[].attributes.body
Written by a climate scientist, this piece offers some interesting alternative ideas to those put forward by Mike Hulme

# data[].attributes.headline
Should scientists engage in civil disobedience?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should scientists engage in civil disobedience?

# data[].attributes.body
Geographer Noel Castree offers some reflections on how scientists can best adapt their practices in the face of political inaction (and even climate scepticism)

# data[].attributes.body
In this weeks seminar we discussed how the value of nature and ecosystem services is considered in environmental economics. I am wondering if ecosystem services/nature in general is included in economic models used by economists? And if so how do they incorporate such a difficult concept into actual models applied to the real world?

Thanks!

# data[].attributes.headline
How should the 'value' of nature be calculated?

# data[].attributes.subject
How should the 'value' of nature be calculated?

# data[].attributes.body
For anyone interested in learning more about the challenges of using the "contingent valuation method" to put a price on nature, this paper may be of interest

# data[].attributes.headline
An interesting article setting out some of the key concerns around forest-based carbon offsets

# data[].attributes.subject
An interesting article setting out some of the key concerns around forest-based carbon offsets

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In early 2023, the Guardian published an article suggesting that more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets are worthless. These credits are essentially a promise to protect forests and can be bought as a way to "offset" emissions elsewhere. Verra, the largest certifier of these offset credits, said the claims were " absolutely incorrect" but the story still shook confidence in the billion-dollar market. Soon after, Verra's CEO stood down.

The claims in the Guardian article rested heavily on analysis which had been published as a preprint (before peer review). Now the research has been fully peer-reviewed and is published in the journal Science. It shows unequivocally that many projects which have sold what are known as REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation) credits have failed to reduce deforestation.

REDD+ projects aim to slow deforestation (for example, by supporting farmers to change their practices). They quantify the carbon saved through reducing deforestation relative to what would have happened without the project, and sell these emission reductions as credits.

Such REDD+ credits are widely used to "offset" (that is, cancel out) emissions from companies (who may use them to make claims that their operations are carbon neutral) or by people concerned about their carbon footprint. For example, if you were planning to fly from London to New York you might consider buying REDD+ credits that promise to conserve rainforest in the Congo Basin (with added benefits for forest elephants and bonobos). Offsetting your return flight would appear to cost a very affordable £16.44.

However, while previous analysis showed that some REDD+ projects have contributed to slowing deforestation and forest degradation, the central finding from the new study is that many projects have slowed deforestation much less than they have claimed and, consequently, have promised greater carbon savings than they have delivered. So that guilt-free flight to New York probably isn't carbon neutral after all.

The finding that many REDD+ carbon credits have not delivered forest conservation is extremely worrying to anyone who cares about the future of tropical forests. We spoke to Sven Wunder, a forest economist and a co-author of the new study. He told us that: "To tackle climate change, tropical deforestation must be stopped. Forests also matter for other reasons: losing forests will result in loss of species, and will affect regional rainfall patterns. Despite the evidence that REDD+ has not been delivering additional conservation, we cannot afford to give up."

Deforestation could simply move elsewhere

Carbon credits also face other challenges, one of the biggest being "leakage" or displacement of deforestation. Leakage may occur because the people who were cutting down the forest simply relocate to a different area. Alternatively, demand for food or timber that was fuelling deforestation in one place may be met by deforestation elsewhere - perhaps on the other side of the world. Another problem is ensuring that the forests are protected in perpetuity so that reduced deforestation represents permanent removal of carbon from the atmosphere.

Addressing these challenges is vital because selling carbon credits is an important source of finance for forest conservation. It is not too dramatic to say that unreliable REDD+ credits directly threaten forests.

However, this is an active research area and new approaches are increasingly available. Andrew Balmford is a professor of conservation science at the University of Cambridge who is actively developing methods to improve the credibility of forest carbon markets. He says the new study raises some important concerns but that more robust and transparent methods have been developed. Deploying these new methods, he told us, is "an urgent priority".

Change is also needed to how certification operates. At present, there are incentives for verifiers to inflate estimates of the amount of deforestation that would have happened without the project, and therefore the number of credits that can be issued. Sven Wunder explains: "We need to move beyond vested interest towards independent governance employing scientifically informed, cutting-edge methods."

Reasons to be cautious

Even if these problems can be solved, there are still reasons to be cautious about the role of carbon offsets in combating climate change. First, there is the risk that offsetting actually increases emissions because people or companies might feel more comfortable emitting carbon if they believe they can undo any damage by simply buying carbon credits. For this reason, some argue that offsets must only ever be a last resort, after all non-essential emissions have been cut (the problem being of course: who decides which emissions are essential?).

Second, keeping warming within 2°C will require most deforestation to be stopped and major reductions in fossil fuel emissions. There is a limit to which one can be used to balance out the other.

Finally, there are serious equity concerns with some forest carbon offsets. If forest conservation is achieved by stopping farmers in low-income countries from clearing land for agriculture, REDD+ may exacerbate poverty: your long haul flight would come at the expense of others being able to feed their families.

We don't know how much it would cost to achieve genuinely additional offsets which avoid leakage and ensure equity but it is likely to be considerably more expensive than forest carbon credits currently sell for. A higher price would reduce the perception that offsetting is an easy option and should encourage more focus on reducing emissions.

So, should you buy those cheap forest carbon offsets when taking a flight? Unfortunately, there's currently little evidence that doing so will really make your journey carbon neutral. If you want to contribute to tackling climate change, perhaps the only real option is to not take the flight.

Don't have time to read about climate change as much as you'd like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation's environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 20,000+ readers who've subscribed so far.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Worthless' forest carbon offsets risk exacerbating climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We need to urgently reform the way forest conservation is measured and sold as a way to offset emissions.

# data[].attributes.body
Hot of the press, here is a new, short paper by Susan Owens on 'Climate Geographies and Geographies of Knowledge'. A concise and very informative read for thinking critically about how expertise and knowledge of different kinds has shaped and continues to shape climate change policy and politics.

# data[].attributes.headline
Where does the idea of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees come from?

# data[].attributes.subject
Where does the idea of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees come from?

# data[].attributes.body
A recent paper exploring the history of the 1.5 degree target for limiting global warming (Cointe and Guillemot 2023)

# data[].attributes.body
Interesting dynamic between market direction and ESG culture - in this case, despite BPs big net-zero goals, the pressure from investors and the market led them to retract certain environmental promises made (followed by the CEO/promise-maker's resignment soon after).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Not So Fast, Euro Major BP Reconsiders Pace Of Energy Transition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It’s funny what the smell of money will do to a company’s resolve. After Euro major BP posted strong second-quarter profits thanks to high oil prices, the company announced it was curbing its ambitious zero carbon goals and planning to increase hydrocarbon production.

# data[].attributes.body
Another hot-off-the-press paper, highly relevant to our discussions around net zero and assumptions about the capacity of society to achieve large-scale negative emissions in the coming decades. One of the co-authors of this piece is Bristol Geography's own Dr Fabien Maussion!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Overconfidence in climate overshoot - Nature

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Aiming for declining global temperatures can limit long-term climate risks compared with a mere stabilization of global warming, including sea-level rise and cryosphere changes.

# data[].attributes.headline
Last report: G20 Taskforce on a Global Mobilization against Climate Change (TF-CLIMA)

# data[].attributes.subject
Last report: G20 Taskforce on a Global Mobilization against Climate Change (TF-CLIMA)

# data[].attributes.body
Some ideas to share.

Web page:

https://www.g20.org/en/tracks/sherpa-track/climate-change/the-g20-taskforce-on-a-global-mobilization-against-climate-change-tf-clima

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Independent report TFCLIMA Group of Experts

# data[].attributes.body
A recent paper calling for more attention to intersectionality in research examining climate (in)justice

# data[].attributes.headline
Is setting a deadline for tackling climate change dangerous?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is setting a deadline for tackling climate change dangerous?

# data[].attributes.body
Provocative article from Asayama et al. on the risks of 'deadlinism' in environmental politics...

# data[].attributes.body
Is Vancouver referencing style appropriate for the report?

And how/ do we reference quotes taken from live conference?

# data[].attributes.body
Very short recent comment piece on the tensions between diversity and inclusion in the composition of expert authors contributing to IPCC reports