An infographic explaining what a baseline is. The baseline represents the deforestation and/or degradation that would have happened without the carbon crediting programme. For example, let’s say an area has 1 acre of forest in 2023. The project developer predicts the amount of forest that will be lost due to deforestation, without a REDD+ project, by 2030. Using this amount of forest lost, the number of carbon credits are calculated. Let’s say, this amount of forest equates to 100 tonnes of CO2e, which equates to 100 carbon credits. In this scenario, this project generates 100 credits for sale. However, in reality, for the same acre of forest, it is likely that it will lose less forest than predicted. Let’s say, the amount of forest lost only equates to 50 tonnes of CO2e, which means that the project actually only requires 50 carbon credits. This means, there are 100 minus 50 equals 50 credits that are essentially worthless. That means that some companies could have said they were environmentally conscious, while purchasing credits that are worthless and do not actually do anything for the environment. This is greenwashing.

How more carbon credits exist than

what is necessary

What the baseline represents:

The baseline represents the deforestation and/or degradation that would have

happened without the carbon crediting programme.

To understand it better, let’s imagine that...

In 2023,

By 2030,

there is 1 acre of forest.

this is the predicted amount of forest left, caused by deforestation, without a REDD+ project.

Using this amount of forest lost, the number of carbon credits are calculated:

 

This amount of forest = 100 tonnes of CO2e

100 tonnes of CO2e = 100 carbon credits

 

Let's say, in this scenario, this project generates 100 carbon credits for sale.

Legend:

1 square

= 1 carbon credit

This baseline calculation is often predicted using historical data.

 

However, current deforestation rates are likely to be different, due to the

modern economic, political, and social climate, as well as conservation

and preservation efforts.

 

This means that in reality...

In 2023,

By 2030,

this is how much forest will actually be left, without a REDD+ project.

there is 1 acre of forest.

= difference between predicted baseline

In reality, the project only requires

50 carbon credits.

 

That means, there are 100-50=50 credits that are essentially worthless.

 

This means that some companies purchased carbon credits that are worthless, or do not actually do anything for the environment.

What’s the alternative?

A more suitable baseline calculation method would be to use actual

deforestation rates in a few control plots, looking backwards in time over the

reporting period, rather than immediately predicting baselines prior to the start

of the project.

An infographic explaining what a baseline is. The baseline represents the deforestation and/or degradation that would have happened without the carbon crediting programme. For example, let’s say an area has 1 acre of forest in 2023. The project developer predicts the amount of forest that will be lost due to deforestation, without a REDD+ project, by 2030. Using this amount of forest lost, the number of carbon credits are calculated. Let’s say, this amount of forest equates to 100 tonnes of CO2e, which equates to 100 carbon credits. In this scenario, this project generates 100 credits for sale. However, in reality, for the same acre of forest, it is likely that it will lose less forest than predicted. Let’s say, the amount of forest lost only equates to 50 tonnes of CO2e, which means that the project actually only requires 50 carbon credits. This means, there are 100 minus 50 equals 50 credits that are essentially worthless. That means that some companies could have said they were environmentally conscious, while purchasing credits that are worthless and do not actually do anything for the environment. This is greenwashing.

How more carbon credits

exist than what is necessary

What the baseline represents:

The baseline represents the

deforestation and/or

degradation that would have

happened without the carbon

crediting programme.

To understand it better,

let’s imagine that...

By 2030,

In 2023,

this is the predicted amount of forest left, caused by deforestation, without a REDD+ project.

there is 1 acre of forest.

Legend:

1 square

= 1 carbon credit

Using this amount of forest lost, the number of carbon credits are calculated:

 

This amount of forest = 100 tonnes of CO2e

100 tonnes of CO2e = 100 carbon credits

 

Let's say, in this scenario, this project generates 100 carbon credits for sale.

This baseline calculation is often

predicted using historical data.

 

However, current deforestation

rates are likely to be different,

due to the modern economic,

political, and social climate, as

well as conservation and

preservation efforts.

 

This means that in reality...

= difference between predicted baseline

By 2030,

In 2023,

this is how much forest will actually be left, without a REDD+ project.

there is 1 acre of forest.

In reality, the project only requires 50 carbon credits.

 

That means, there are 100-50=50 credits that are essentially worthless.

 

This means that some companies purchased carbon credits that are worthless, or do not actually do anything for the environment.

What’s the alternative?

A more suitable baseline

calculation method would be

to use actual deforestation

rates in a few control plots,

looking backwards in time

over the reporting period,

rather than immediately

predicting baselines prior to

the start of the project.

An infographic explaining what a baseline is. The baseline represents the deforestation and/or degradation that would have happened without the carbon crediting programme. For example, let’s say an area has 1 acre of forest in 2023. The project developer predicts the amount of forest that will be lost due to deforestation, without a REDD+ project, by 2030. Using this amount of forest lost, the number of carbon credits are calculated. Let’s say, this amount of forest equates to 100 tonnes of CO2e, which equates to 100 carbon credits. In this scenario, this project generates 100 credits for sale. However, in reality, for the same acre of forest, it is likely that it will lose less forest than predicted. Let’s say, the amount of forest lost only equates to 50 tonnes of CO2e, which means that the project actually only requires 50 carbon credits. This means, there are 100 minus 50 equals 50 credits that are essentially worthless. That means that some companies could have said they were environmentally conscious, while purchasing credits that are worthless and do not actually do anything for the environment. This is greenwashing.

How more carbon credits exist than

what is necessary

What the baseline represents:

The baseline represents the deforestation and/or

degradation that would have happened without the

carbon crediting programme.

To understand it better, let’s imagine that...

By 2030,

In 2023,

there is 1 acre of forest.

this is the predicted amount of forest left, caused by deforestation, without a REDD+ project.

Legend:

1 square

= 1 carbon credit

Using this amount of forest lost, the number of carbon credits are calculated:

 

This amount of forest = 100 tonnes of CO2e

100 tonnes of CO2e = 100 carbon credits

 

Let's say, in this scenario, this project generates 100 carbon credits for sale.

This baseline calculation is often predicted using historical data.

 

However, current deforestation rates are likely to be different, due to the modern economic, political, and social climate, as well as conservation and preservation efforts.

 

This means that in reality...

In 2023,

By 2030,

there is 1 acre of forest.

this is how much forest will actually be left, without a REDD+ project.

= difference between predicted baseline

In reality, the project only requires 50 carbon credits.

 

That means, there are 100-50=50 credits that are essentially worthless.

 

This means that some companies purchased carbon credits that are worthless, or do not actually do anything for the environment.

What’s the alternative?

A more suitable baseline calculation method would

be to use actual deforestation rates in a few control

plots, looking backwards in time over the reporting

period, rather than immediately predicting baselines

prior to the start of the project.