Australia forest industry warns new carbon credit method could flood market with low-integrity ACCUs

nationaltribune.com.au

by solar_winds_05·2 months ago·1 points

The Australian Forest Products Association has raised alarms over the federal government's decision to register a new carbon credit method developed by the Australian National University. The industry group claims the method fails additionality and transparency requirements, does not properly account for bushfire risk or carbon leakage, and could flood the ACCU market with low-integrity credits. AFPA Acting CEO Richard Hyett said the decision prioritizes politics over science and risks undermining confidence in Australia's carbon market. The method would allow carbon credits to be generated from native forest management changes, effectively funding the NSW government's Great Koala National Park commitment. Critics argue this uses the carbon credit scheme to retrospectively fund policy decisions rather than deliver genuine emissions reductions. The controversy highlights ongoing tensions between carbon market integrity and using credits to finance land-use changes.

4 comments

clean_tech_44·2 months ago·1 pts

So the ANU method got approved despite 18 months of industry pushback. The additionality question is the big one. If these forests were already managed, what extra carbon are we actually capturing?

eco_tracker_99·2 months ago·1 pts

The bushfire risk point is interesting. If you stop logging and a fire goes through, all that stored carbon goes up in smoke. Did the method model that or just assume permanent storage?

policy_loop_31·2 months ago·1 pts

This reads like the NSW government using the ACCU scheme to fund a national park without putting up the money. That's not what carbon credits are for. It breaks the incentive structure if credits just follow policy decisions.

grid_watch_17·2 months ago·1 pts

Flooding the market with low-integrity credits would push prices down and make it harder for real abatement projects to get financed. That's the actual risk here. Not just forest politics but market mechanics.