Bill Hare is a physicist and climate scientist with 30 years’ experience. Claudio Forner is a climate change expert with 20 years of experience working on international and national climate policy. Hare is the CEO and founder of Climate Analytics and Forner is head of climate policy at Climate Analytics.

This week Climate Home News published an article by Hare and Forner under the headline, “Why governments should not hide behind forests to meet their emissions goals”.

Hare and Forner write that,

To address climate change, the answer should be relatively simple: governments need to decarbonise their economies by first focusing on stopping the burning of fossil fuels.

They note that we are “currently facing a crisis involving the land sector”, which they explain as follows:

The scientific community is clear that including land and forest carbon storage together with fossil fuels and other emissions in national single national targets – as some governments are doing – will likely allow for greater emissions of fossil fuel carbon.

Share

“Scientifically flawed”

Hare and Forner write that “the idea that land-based carbon removal/sequestration can ‘offset’ CO₂ emissions from burning fossil fuels is scientifically flawed”.

This is a fundamental problem that cannot be overcome by improved methodologies, better safeguards, or more rigorous measurement, reporting, and verification. It’s the difference, in terms of the climate, between the slow carbon cycle and the fast carbon cycle.

The carbon stored underground is part of the slow carbon cycle. The carbon is stored beneath the earth and is only released to the atmosphere if it is extracted and burned.

The carbon stored in trees, soils, and other “natural climate solutions” is part of the fast carbon cycle. Hare and Forner write that,

For all practical purposes, fossil fuel CO₂ emissions are irreversible. They can stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years, whereas land-sector “offsets” or “sinks” are impermanent – especially when considering the increasing number of wildfires around the planet.

Nevertheless, under the Paris Agreement, governments are allowed to equate fossil fuel emissions with the drawdown of CO₂ by natural carbon sinks. By paying for tree planting and forest protection, a country can claim to have achieved “net zero” while still contributing to global heating as its emissions from burning fossil fuels continue to increase.

Brazil’s carbon accounting “opaque at best”

Hare and Forner note that Brazil will be hosting COP30 later this year. They write that,

In the case of Brazil, its 2035 NDC is cast in net emission terms and does not differentiate between the contribution of its land sector and the fossil fuel sector, making it impossible to work out what, if anything, is actually going to be done.

They describe Brazil’s Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) accounting in the country’s nationally determined contribution as “opaque at best”. Meanwhile, Brazil’s energy sector emissions continue to rise.

In 2024, crude oil was Brazil’s largest export. Foreign oil sales reached almost US$45 billion. 44% of the oil went to China, 13% to the US, and 11% to Spain. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva says that “decarbonization is not a choice, it is a necessity and a great opportunity” while pushing for oil exploration in the mouth of the Amazon River.

Sink or source?

In a recent report about the contribution of northern boreal forests to the Paris Agreement, Climate Analytics found that global assessments of carbon emissions and sequestration from forests “differ substantially” from land sector emissions reported by governments.

Hare and Forner write that,

Governments’ national inventories show the land sector as a global sink, but the global models show it as a source of emissions. The difference between the two is marked: roughly the equivalent to the entire emissions from the US in 2023.

Climate Analytics calls on governments to focus first on decarbonising their economies. They also call on governments and corporations to set separate targets for land use sinks. And to communicate transparently how much they intend to rely on sinks to meet the climate targets in their nationally determined contributions.

Hare and Forder write that,

Instead of deploying what increasingly look like creative accounting tricks, governments must get on with the job of prioritising fossil fuel emission reductions.

Hare and Forder call on governments to commit to ending deforestation by 2030. Unfortunately they make no mention of the Glasgow Declaration on Forests, which was signed by more than 140 countries at COP26 in 2021. This includes a promise to stop deforestation by 2030.

The Declaration has done little or nothing to reduce deforestation. 17 of the 20 countries with the largest area of primary forest have higher rates of primary forest loss today than when the agreement was signed.

And 2024 saw record rates of deforestation — driven by fires.

Hare and Forner also call on governments to “set out how and when they plan to cut their emissions to net zero, including their planned use of carbon trading to help them get there”.

This recommendation is ridiculously weak. Having explained how emissions from fossil fuels will increase thanks to carbon trading wouldn’t it make more sense for Hare and Forner to call for an immediate ban on carbon trading?