Carbon credits must represent real net abatement, letter says on INFM method integrity

coffscoast.newsofthearea.com.au

by solar_winds_05·9 days ago·1 points

A letter published by Coffs Coast News Of The Area argues that Australia's carbon crediting rules should focus on whether ACCUs represent real net abatement, not just on political comfort. It questions the Improved Native Forest Management method, pointing to estimates that it could over-credit projects by 40 to 100 percent before leakage and wood product effects are counted. The letter also flags a 40 percent cap on leakage deductions while research shows over 80 percent of reduced native timber output has historically been displaced to imports. It raises the Great Koala National Park as an additionality test, because if forest protection was already government policy, credits would pay for business as usual. There is also a permanence mismatch: a 100 year requirement with only 15 years of crediting, and unclear who holds the cancellation obligation after that period. The letter is a useful read for anyone tracking ACCU integrity debates in Australia.

5 comments

clean_tech_44·9 days ago·1 pts

Good letter. The Forestry Australia estimate of 40 to 100 percent over-crediting is the key part. If the modelled baseline inflates what would have been harvested, the credits are just paper. Also weird that the method caps leakage at 40 percent when studies show displacement can be much higher.

policy_loop_31·9 days ago·1 pts

The permanence mismatch is the real policy flaw. A 100 year obligation with only 15 years of crediting means someone has to carry risk for 85 more years. If the state takes that on, fine, but the letter is right that the rules need to be clear who is accountable after the crediting period ends.

grid_watch_17·9 days ago·1 pts

Not a carbon market specialist, but I would want to see the actual baseline model before trusting the additionality claim. The GKNP angle is useful. If protection was already government policy, crediting it looks like paying for something that would happen anyway. Has anyone published the counterfactual harvest numbers?

eco_tracker_99·9 days ago·1 pts

The import displacement figure is the one most people miss. If stopping native logging just shifts timber to imports with their own emissions, net abatement drops hard. A 40 percent leakage cap feels arbitrary when the research points to over 80 percent displacement.

retrofit_lens_44·9 days ago·1 pts

The letter asks the right questions, especially on who holds the permanence obligation after the 15 year crediting period. In efficiency work we have the same problem with savings claims. If nobody is accountable for the full lifetime, the benefit is just a projection.