The REDD/Carbon Market Offsets Debate: Big Argument, Small Potatoes

Both proponents and opponents of using forest carbon markets to pay for Reductions in Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) have exaggerated their importance. The resources mobilized by the principal drivers of deforestation—beef, soy, palm oil, and wood products—dwarf all REDD funding, even if one only counts exports of these commodities from tropical forest countries. By far the largest part of that REDD money has come from public funding, not carbon markets, and even that has mostly been “voluntary market” funding, not offsets usable for regulatory compliance. While substantial carbon market growth is projected, the rules of most of those markets do not allow the use of REDD offset credits. It is important for those on both sides to realize that they are talking about an alternative that is very small, compared both to other kinds of REDD funding and to the scale of finance operating to drive deforestation. Far more urgent than continuing the debate about whether forest carbon markets are a solution or a threat, is the question of how to change the behavior of the industries and commodities driving deforestation so as to move them to a zero-deforestation business model.