Bad Carbon Credits are Driving Out Good Carbon Credits

Peter Coy writes in the New York Times recently that voluntary carbon markets have driven carbon credit prices to about $2 per metric ton of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere, down from about $9/ton early last year. He notes that this price-tumble is not because the cost of reducing emissions has dropped to $2 per ton. "It's because buyers don't trust the quality of the credits," he writes. "They worry that the sellers of credits aren't doing what they promise." Coy observes that none of this, unfortunately is helpful in dealing with the carbon problems that the markets were intended to solve.

U.S. Wetland and Stream Mitigation Banking by contrast produces credits based solely on environmental performance. Those credits are fully certified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and government Inter-Agency Review Team (IRT) and intended as priority for the offset of unavoidable impacts to the Nation's waters. This is supported by long-standing RULE and LAW. Mitigation Bank projects have non-wasting endowments that ensure the long-term stewardship of the property, along with in-perpetuity protections for the resources. These credits do what they promise. Other offset programs would do well to model their policies and guidance on the 12 elements found within the 2008 Final Mitigation Rule.

The carbon markets story sounds a loud warning trumpeting the futility and damage which result from a 'race to the bottom' in any environmental market. Creating environmental credits for sale at below the cost of production will only continue to accelerate further damage to the planet - regardless that good public relations may hide those running the race.