A recently published report by the Washington Post documented the practice of ‘avoided deforestation’ in a the heart of the Amazon rainforest.
The Peruvian timber giant Maderacre operates a vast facility, converting ancient hardwood trees into industrial-scale flooring. But alongside its operations, the investigation discovered a contentious practice: the selling of carbon credits based on the preservation of existing trees rather than planting new ones.
Maderacre’s approach falls under the banner of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+), a scheme designed to offset greenhouse gas emissions. However, critics argue that such practices may be more detrimental than beneficial to the environment.
Britaldo Soares, a professor at Brazil’s Minas Gerais Federal University, denounces REDD+ as a “climate scam,” emphasizing its reliance on speculative calculations rather than tangible conservation efforts.
Barbara Haya of the University of California at Berkeley highlights the prevalence of “phantom” credits within REDD+ projects, attributing it to a systemic issue where all stakeholders benefit from inflated credits.
Despite its widespread adoption by companies like Shell, Southwest Airlines, Disney, and Gucci, doubts persist regarding the effectiveness of carbon credits generated through REDD+ initiatives.
Erin Sills of North Carolina State University, along with other researchers, found that many forest carbon concessions failed to deliver genuine reductions in deforestation, casting doubts on the credibility of such projects.
In defense of its practices, Maderacre argues that its selective, sustainable logging practices contribute to maintaining the ecological balance of the forest. However, critics question the notion of “additionality,” arguing that revenue from carbon credits may not truly prevent deforestation if it merely supplements existing land uses.
