Investigative reporters found that the United Nations is not climate neutral as it claims to be, relying on carbon credits that have little impact. Many projects issuing carbon credits to the UN were linked to environmental damage. The UN's purchase of low-cost carbon credits and the potential impact on the market is explored. The flaws in the carbon credits system and the importance of direct emissions reduction are discussed. The investigation of the UN's climate neutrality, including the surprising discovery of millions of UN credits, is highlighted.
The United Nations' claim of being climate neutral is largely based on the controversial use of carbon credits, which are often ineffective or detrimental to the environment and human health.
The purchase of low-quality carbon credits by the UN raises doubts about the effectiveness of their climate neutrality claims and calls into question the integrity of carbon offsetting as a solution to the climate crisis.
Deep dives
The UN's Claims of Climate Neutrality
The United Nations (UN) claims to be 95% or more climate neutral, but their claim is largely based on the use of carbon credits, a controversial method of offsetting emissions. However, a year-long investigation by Mongabay and The New Humanitarian found that most of these offsets purchased by the UN are either ineffective or detrimental to the environment and human health. The investigation discovered that the UN is spending millions of dollars on low-quality carbon credits instead of investing in more effective climate solutions. This raises questions about the UN's credibility as a moral compass on climate change.
The Quality of UN's Carbon Offsets
The UN bases its climate neutrality claims on buying millions of carbon credits, but the investigation found that these credits are often of low quality. Many of the projects associated with these credits are linked to environmental damage, displacement of communities, and health concerns. For example, some credits came from hydropower projects that have led to deforestation, flooding, and displacement of indigenous communities. The investigation also highlighted a waste-to-energy plant in New Delhi that burns plastic and causes health problems. The purchase of low-quality carbon credits raises doubts about the effectiveness of the UN's climate neutrality claims.
The Problems with Carbon Credits
Carbon credits, used to offset emissions, are controversial because they don't always result in the reduction of greenhouse gases. Some experts argue that carbon credits are a permission to emit more greenhouse gases, rather than a means of genuine emissions reduction. The investigation revealed that the UN purchased carbon credits as cheap as 12 cents per credit, well below the average market price. High-quality carbon credits can cost up to $100 per credit. This calls into question the integrity and effectiveness of carbon offsetting as a solution to the climate crisis.
Lack of Oversight and Scrutiny
One of the concerning findings of the investigation is that the UN's entire offset portfolio is exempt from oversight. This lack of scrutiny allows for the purchase of low-quality carbon credits and raises concerns about the UN's commitment to transparency. When presented with the findings, the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) officials did not respond to specific questions about projects, instead referring to the standards set by the Clean Development Mechanism, which have been criticized by experts for over a decade. The investigation highlights the need for increased scrutiny and evaluation of carbon offset projects.
In a yearlong investigation from The New Humanitarian and Mongabay, spanning multiple countries, investigative reporters found the United Nations is not climate neutral as it claims to be.
The UN bases much of its claims on the use of carbon credits--which are already increasingly criticized by experts as having little impact on actually offsetting emissions.
Reporters found that many projects that issue carbon credits to the U.N. were linked to environmental damage or displacement, and 2.7 million out of 6.6 million credits were linked to wind or hydropower — which experts say don’t represent true emissions reductions.
Joining the podcast to explain these findings is investigative reporter Jacob Goldberg from The New Humanitarian.
Please invite your friends to subscribe to the Mongabay Newscast wherever they get podcasts, from Apple to Spotify, or download our free app in the Apple App Store or in the Google Store to get access to our latest episodes at your fingertips.
If you enjoy the Newscast, please visit www.patreon.com/mongabay to pledge a dollar or more to keep the show growing, Mongabay is a nonprofit media outlet and all support helps!
See all our latest news from nature's frontline at Mongabay's homepage: news.mongabay.com or find and follow Mongabay on all the social media platforms.
Episode artwork: More than half of the UN carbon offsets come from high-risk projects. Image by JuergenPM via Pixabay (Public domain).