-The science of human-caused
climate change is fairly
straightforward. When we emit greenhouse gases
like carbon dioxide, those molecules trap heat
in the atmosphere and raise global temperatures. -It's possible that
we could have very serious
changes in global climate and effects
on agriculture and effects on
societies. -We know we need to cut
emissions
in half by 2030 to avoid pushing our systems
past a dangerous brink. -While most of us want to save
the planet by curbing emissions, we also enjoy living in
a consumer society. How do we get industries to
pollute less without driving those industries
out of business? -One popular strategy to do
this, especially among corporations
and governments of wealthy
nations, is carbon trading. A market-based system that aims to provide economic
incentives
for countries and businesses to reduce their environmental
footprint. -We've all come across some form
of taxes
or extra charges for using
plastic bags, coffee cups, and of course,
the optional carbon footprint
charges when you buy a flight. This is a much larger market
for even larger polluters. -There are different forms
of carbon trading, but the basic premise is
to give polluters a way to keep emitting carbon in one
place
by paying to reduce it somewhere
else. -Company A
wants to cut its carbon
emissions. Company B is financing a
project, say, building a wind farm
or switching from coal to solar
plants. Then a broker matches those
offsets
with a buyer like company A. Company B
gets their money for their
projects, and company A gets closer
to meeting its emission goals. -Here's the problem, carbon markets don't reduce
emissions
at the source, thus continuing to impact
environments and communities. The system perpetuates our
reliance
on fossil fuels and makes things worse. -A report in 2015 found that
an estimated 80% of sustainable
projects under the trading scheme
were questionable, enabling emissions to increase
by roughly 600 million metric
tons. -Research has shown that
the world needs to keep 90% of
coal and 60% of oil and gas reserves
in the ground to prevent a 1.5 degree Celsius
increase
in global average temperature. That's going to take major
changes
in the way businesses operate. Carbon offsets aren't the
solution. Let's look at carbon offset
markets. Say you're a company in
California
that wants to or is required to
go green, but you don't want to change
your production model to lower
emissions because it'll affect your profit
margins. You could purchase carbon
credits that fund a protected forest
in the Amazon, which absorbs greenhouse gases, or you can pay
to develop a new solar project that replaces fossil fuel use in
Nevada. You can then count those credits as part of your contributions
to reducing emissions. Here's the first big problem
with carbon trading. The system encourages companies to buy offsets instead
of decreasing their emissions. -Those carbon offset techniques range from getting rid
of old chemical refrigerants and capturing methane
from dairy farm manure, to planting trees. -We can see it in California, which has a carbon emissions
reduction program called Cap & Trade. -Cap & Trade program. -New Cap & Trade law. -A Cap & Trade limits on carbon. -The state sets an emissions
limit
or cap each year, and companies have to
either keep within the limit or buy pollution allowances. The cap goes down each year, theoretically making it harder
and more expensive to pollute. Companies that want to pollute
more can buy allowances from
companies
that reduce their emissions. -Tesla, for example, has sold emission credits
to Fiat Chrysler and General.. making $1.7 billion since 2012. -They can also buy offsets in
forests and carbon reduction projects
to stay under the cap. Although California's total
greenhouse gas emissions dropped since the program started in
2013, emissions increased in more than
half
of the program's facilities in the first three years. Between 2013 and 2019, emissions from the oil and gas
industries
in California went up. Predominantly low-income
neighborhoods
and communities of color who live and work
near these facilities now experience worse air quality
than before the program started. -They're continuing to extract
and emit fossil fuels in our
towns, and it's directly impacting us
as indigenous peoples, people of color, low-income
communities. -The overall emissions
reductions
that occurred through trading are nowhere near enough for the
state
to reach its climate targets. There's another problem
with carbon trading. The very concept
that buying a carbon offset can reduce emissions elsewhere
is fundamentally flawed. For one, it's very, very hard,
if not impossible, to measure and verify saved carbon
or avoided emissions. -There's no regulation about
offsets
in particular that measures
their quality, whether or not they're permanent on whether or not they really
are
providing the emission
reductions that they're often told. -It's also very easy to cheat. -Either by making their
overall emissions cap too
generous or using accounting tricks
to overstate reductions. -Around the world,
carbon credits are purchased in
hydropower or conservation projects
that would've happened anyway. -This is a bonus for them to be
collecting
millions of dollars for the carbon offset
that they were going to do
anyway. -Loopholes allow organizations
to make it appear that forests
planted through carbon funding
save a lot more carbon than they actually do, or sometimes due to natural
disasters
or logging. The carbon in these offset
forests
goes right back into the
atmosphere. -All of these trees that we're
seeing here
that burned down, -these were all part of an
offset program?
-Yes. -In 2020, a 153,000 acres of
forests
enrolled in California's offset
program burned down. -That is making trees a less
reliable ally
in the fig.. -Last summer's bootleg fire was the third largest wildfire
in Oregon history. Smoke from the massive blaze
turned the sky gray as far away as New York City. -Up in Mendocino County,
the so-called Hopkins Fire. That fire has burned 275 acres,
and it's only 10% contained. -Meanwhile, the projects that do
actively keep these trees
standing or build new hydropower plants, often dispossess indigenous
and local people of their land taking resources out of their
control. -Described as the most beautiful
river
in the Amazon region. A plan to build several dams
along its length would transform this wide,
shallow river. It would flood forests and
islands
used by the Munduruku for
centuries. -In essence, carbon trading
forces those
least responsible for climate
change to bear the burden of
its so-called solutions through trees, oceans, soil, or questionable direct
air capture technology. Offsets tend to rely more
on carbon removal than just reducing emissions
at the source. The world needs to reduce carbon
on every possible front, but carbon markets give
policymakers a way out of cutting
greenhouse gas emissions, which is what we actually need
right now. -At the United Nations
Climate Conference in Madrid, governments are hoping to
finalize the rules for
international carbon markets. -Unfortunately, carbon markets
are a leading climate change
strategy around the world
and a favorite with oil
companies. Carbon trading
is a multi-billion dollar
industry, with voluntary offset markets
hitting record investments in
2021. Carbon dioxide allowances
soared 250% last year to a
record high. -Many US states participate
in regional cap and trade
programs. The EU, Canada, Australia,
China,
and other countries have them. Yet none have gotten us close to
net-zero. What actually needs to be done? Companies must reduce emissions
at the source immediately, not just wherever and whenever
it's convenient for them. Governments need to make sure
fossil fuels stay in the ground. Forest protection
and renewable energy projects should be built on
strong indigenous land rights, excluding the carbon market. Communities need control over
what gets cited in their
backyards. Our collective health and
wellbeing
needs to take center stage over endless economic growth
and production. [music]
