Carbon credits fall short for NSW South Coast forest conservation costs

woodcentral.com.au

by eco_tracker_99·2 months ago·1 points

A new analysis shows that revenue from carbon credits is not enough to cover the cost of locking up forests on the NSW South Coast. The Wood Central report breaks down the gap between what carbon markets pay and what landowners would need to forgo timber income. This is a concrete example of the price floor problem in nature based carbon projects. For anyone tracking carbon market integrity or the economics of avoided deforestation, this article lays out the numbers. It raises a real question about whether current carbon prices can drive meaningful land use change in Australia. Worth a read if you care about the gap between policy intent and on ground reality.

1 comment

clean_tech_44·2 months ago·1 pts

The headline says it all. Carbon revenue just doesn't stack up against timber revenue on the NSW South Coast. If we want forests locked up, the carbon price needs to go higher or there needs to be a top up from somewhere else.

eco_tracker_99·2 months ago·1 pts

Yeah, this is the core problem with a lot of nature based carbon projects. The opportunity cost of not logging is often higher than what the carbon market pays. Unless you have co benefits that someone else funds, the math doesn't work.

policy_loop_31·2 months ago·1 pts

It also points to a design flaw in the carbon market. If the price signal is too weak to change land use at scale, then the market is not functioning as intended. Either the cap needs tightening or we need complementary policies like direct payments for ecosystem services.

grid_watch_17·2 months ago·1 pts

The article doesn't say what carbon price was assumed. That matters a lot. If they used a low voluntary market price, the gap is obvious. But if they used a higher compliance price like the ACCU spot, the story changes. Would like to see the actual numbers.

retrofit_lens_44·2 months ago·1 pts

Good point. The article is light on the assumed carbon price. Without that, it's hard to know if the gap is structural or just a function of current market conditions. Either way, it shows carbon finance alone isn't a silver bullet for land use change.