A new study shows that logged and degraded tropical forests are a net source of carbon emissions for at least 10 years, meaning the carbon they emit is more than what they absorb.

New young trees taking the place of logged ones for timber are thought to suck in more CO2 than what’s lost in logging. But that’s not always the case, according to new research. 

One author said carbon sequestration is outweighed by the high emissions from soil organic matter and decaying wood. Thus, it’s a disbelief that logged forests continue to take in more carbon than they put out.

An expert informed about the study noted:

“The newly sequestered carbon will not be equitable to the original carbon sink and could not compensate for carbon losses due to logging. On the other hand, logging could increase heterotrophic activities such as decomposition and soil degradation, worsening the carbon balance in a forest ecosystem.”

The recent paper is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It was part of the Imperial College London’s Stability of Altered Forest Ecosystem (SAFE) project.

Forests: No Longer Carbon Sinks?

Land sequesters about 30% of global GHG emissions, making it a great carbon sink. And tropical forests are an important component of that carbon sink. 

The world’s largest tropical rainforest, the Amazon, stores a large amount of carbon and houses at least 10% of the world’s biodiversity.

Tropical forests are a critical element of the global carbon budget. It refers to the highest level of global net emissions allowed to limit global warming to a certain level. 

According to an older paper, tropical forests sequestered 15% of all CO2 emitted by humans between 1990 and 2007. But the new study finds that the carbon sequestering abilities of tropical forests are declining. 

A previous study also showed that tropical forests are no longer carbon sinks because of deforestation and land degradation. 

In the case of the forests in Malaysian Borneo (the study site), the researchers examined both intact and degraded forest plots to measure the CO2 emissions and sequestration. This forested area faces heavy degradation and deforestation. 

A degraded forest hasn’t been fully cleared but is heavily affected by logging. On the other hand, deforestation refers to the clearing of a forest. 

The team compared the net carbon exchange of a logged forest area with nearby unlogged areas. Using two different methods, the authors concluded that the logged forests are net carbon sources for at least a decade as they recover. 

By calculating plant growth and respiration rates, the scientists found that the cleared area was a carbon source on 99% of the 455 studied days. 

Overestimated Carbon Sequestration? 

Net Ecosystem CO2 Exchange at Logged & Unlogged Sites

The chart above shows the average net ecosystem CO2 exchange at six unlogged and logged sites. It’s measured as millions of grams of carbon per hectare per year.

A positive value indicates a net source of carbon emissions. 

Overall, it says that heavily logged plots (in brown hatched) are a bigger CO2 source than the more moderately logged (in brown striped) and unlogged sites (in green). 

The brown bars show the net emissions from logged areas. While the green bar stresses that intact, old-growth forests are carbon sinks.

Logged Forests as Net Carbon Source

The authors point out that previous research focused on how much CO2 new trees store. But generally, they didn’t consider the overall carbon budget. They fail to account for significant carbon sources such as dead wood and soil. 

On the contrary, the new paper found that a major source of CO2 emissions in logged forests is decaying or rotting parts of a tree. They’re damaged during the logging process. 

The new findings mean that the carbon sequestration rates of recovering tropical forests may be lower than estimated. In other words, there may be an overestimation. Dr. Terhi Riutta, the lead author remarked:

“That’s how logging has often been justified: that you are replacing something that is old, that is not growing very much, by something younger that is growing very fast. But it’s not the whole truth at all.”

If true, this poses a serious concern because “logged tropical forests are counted as important carbon sinks in global carbon budgets due to the woody biomass they regain when they regrow after disturbance”. 

The research concludes that their studied area and data broadly represent the wider logged tropical forest ecosystems. 

Other experts on the matter said that the findings could help improve estimates of carbon emissions from forest degradation. If so, it can aid in mitigating and avoiding emissions from logged forests.

Is offsetting carbon worth it? This question has never been more controversial right now and it deserves a good answer, especially if you’re into carbon offset credits.

If you shop online, take flights, or use ride-hailing apps like Uber, you’ve likely noticed the option of including carbon offsetting when making your purchases. Many companies allow consumers to voluntarily offset the carbon emissions of their rides, flights, or product deliveries by paying for them out of their own products.

But is there an incentive for companies to offset carbon emissions themselves?

Through initiatives like carbon credits, companies can invest in emission reduction projects that will help them move towards carbon neutrality.

So, does offsetting carbon worth it? Do carbon offsetting projects actually do what they say they will? And what else can companies gain by offsetting their carbon emissions?

Before we give you all the answers, let’s get back to basics first by explaining what carbon offsetting is all about.

What is Carbon Offsetting?

Each person on this planet has a carbon footprint, but the size of that footprint is dependent on the actions we take on a daily basis. A carbon footprint is the total amount of greenhouse gases generated by an entity, such as a person, company, event, or place.

The most powerful greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. But carbon dioxide is the most significant contributor to climate change. That’s not because carbon dioxide is more destructive than the others, but because it’s the most common gas generated by human activity. 

That is why there has been a bigger push and focus on carbon offsetting. It’s true that individual activities like daily transportation, diet, and household energy consumption have a part to play. Yet, the largest contributors of carbon dioxide are companies.

In fact, according to The Carbon Majors Database (published by the Carbon Disclosure Project), 71% of the world’s industrial emissions over the last 50 years were produced by just 100 companies. That doesn’t mean individual decisions don’t still have tremendous power, but it’s especially important for companies to consider offsetting carbon.

Carbon offsetting provides gives individuals and companies with an accessible means of offsetting their emissions. One way is by investing in carbon reduction projects such as tree planting initiatives. 

Companies can seek out specific environmental projects like this on their own and partner with them or buy carbon credits from a carbon credits broker, who will invest in offsetting programs on your behalf. If you have a specific cause you’re particularly passionate about, you can channel your carbon-offsetting investment directly to that.

Now that we’ve covered what carbon offsetting is, let’s look at whether carbon offsetting is worth it. What are the benefits?

Carbon Offsets Help Reduce Climate Emissions

We are all aware that the global temperature is rising, along with sea levels. The evidence for climate change cannot be argued, and human emissions have the biggest impact, contributing to 90% of all carbon dioxide emissions. Most people go about their daily business without giving climate emissions much thought.

But what if they cost money?

We bet that people would think twice about their actions if they had to pay for the carbon they emit. Carbon offsetting programs like carbon credits help reduce climate emissions by putting a price tag on emissions, encouraging corporations and companies to implement emission reduction initiatives (or pay the price!).

And while carbon offsetting is still, for the most part, voluntary, there is a global push to reduce emissions. And with that push will come more regulations.

Depending on the regulatory efforts of countries, research from BloombergNEF estimates the cost of carbon offsets could increase by up to 3000% by 2029.

If that isn’t a reason for companies to get the jump on emission reduction efforts, then what is?

Carbon Offsetting Channels Funds to Conservation and Sustainable Development

Carbon offsetting enables companies to tap into and support some incredible conservation and sustainable development projects that positively impact our planet.

Companies can choose projects that align with their values and have the most significant carbon reduction impact. As the number of carbon offsetting and carbon credit programs continues to grow exponentially, their creditability is of utmost importance.

For those wanting to work directly with carbon offsetting organizations, ensure they are accredited by a third party, such as the International Carbon and Offset Alliance (ICROA), American Carbon Registry, and Climate Action Reserve.

Some examples of projects that offset carbon include waste to energy, reforestation, renewable energy (wind, hydro, solar), kelp forests, or avoided emissions projects.

Boosts Company Reputation

Identifying as a carbon-neutral company can boost your reputation as a positive, environmentally friendly, and purpose-oriented corporation.

Reputation is essential for the success of any company or business.

Companies should all adopt CSR (corporate social responsibility), which shows consumers that they operate transparently. And with increased global awareness around sustainability and climate change, consumers expect companies to operate sustainably and responsibly.

By doing so, and being transparent about carbon offsetting practices, you can expect a nice reputation boost! And this reputation boost makes your company more likely to attract the attention of potential consumers and media outlets. That leads us to the next benefit.

Gives Companies a Competitive Edge/Advantage

As previously mentioned, companies operating sustainably is no longer just an added bonus; it’s an expectation. So, are you implementing carbon reduction practices, or at the very least investing in carbon offsetting? If not, then you will soon fall behind any competitors who do.

Consumers who have the choice between a carbon-neutral company and one that is not will inevitably choose the more eco-conscious company. A recent study from SmartestEnergy revealed that 4 of 5 people would choose companies with sustainable environmental practices over those without.

To keep a competitive edge, companies will NEED to participate in carbon offsetting. And that’s regardless if it’s on a voluntary basis or not.

Is Carbon Offsetting Sustainable Long-term?

Some are concerned that carbon offsetting is not an effective long-term solution to climate change. And they may be right.

But the true goal of carbon offsetting isn’t to be the only solution for all of time. What carbon offsetting provides a reinforced company commitment to sustainability and sustainable practices.

Even with companies making no changes to their operations, they’re still investing in projects that will improve how the world operates. But inevitably, companies will be forced into operating more efficiently and reducing their carbon emissions because of carbon offsetting.

The price for carbon offset credits will continue to rise, and while they may be mostly voluntary at this point, it won’t be long before it’s legally mandated.

There are already many mandatory international and regional carbon reduction schemes, such as the California Carbon Market and the Emissions Trading System (ETS) in Europe. And we will see more of them in the coming years. Because of this, companies will be accountable to strive for emission reduction before buying carbon offsets becomes a mandate.

Are Carbon Offsets a Tool for Greenwashing?

Another common misconception about carbon offsetting is that it has the potential to be a tool for greenwashing. 

The ability to offset carbon emissions enables companies to claim they are carbon neutral without actually having to update their processes to reduce operational carbon emissions. And this could mislead consumers to believe that carbon offsetting is not worth it.

While that concern is valid, the reality is that few companies will fork out the money for carbon offsets or carbon credits if they have no concern for the planet or their impact. Most companies use carbon offsetting as a tool for positive change. And that’s while they work on implementing new and more efficient practices.

For firms that invest in carbon offsetting without any intention to make operational changes, they will continue to pay a higher premium for their choices. And that money will go directly into world-changing projects.

How Can You Choose the Best Carbon Offsetting Solution?

Choosing the best carbon offsetting solution can be challenging. Voluntary programs are regulated mainly by private entities (with some not regulated at all).

Can we actually trust private entities like Verified Carbon Standard and Climate Action Reserve to connect us with legitimate programs and missions?

For now, it’s the best we have. But as carbon offsetting continues to become legally mandated, we expect that government entities will be the ones to regulate them. 

In the meantime, initiatives like The Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative have developed a Claims Code of Practice. This initiative is to improve the integrity of carbon offsetting programs, verify climate claims and provide guidance to companies wanting to buy carbon credits.

Initiatives like this can benefit companies that are new to the carbon offsetting game. But your own research will be a key asset in the hunt for a program that aligns most with your offsetting needs.

There are carbon offsetting programs that are:

Crypto-based
Nature-based
Technology-based
Energy and transportation-based

All these sectors require support and have impactful and reputable carbon-offsetting initiatives worth investing in.

So, Is Carbon Offsetting Worth It?

The only way to be carbon neutral is through carbon offsetting. It’s not possible to produce zero carbon. So carbon offsetting is the best way to decrease our actions’ negative impact on the environment.

Emissions reduction should always be at the core of everything we do as individuals and as companies. But carbon offsetting will always be worth it and can take us to carbon neutrality that we all should be striving for.

If you’re unsure where to begin your carbon offsetting journey, purchasing carbon credits is always a good place to start. These credits are then invested into verified and thoroughly researched carbon offsetting programs.

A recent study shows that space-based carbon observations by NASA can help track carbon emissions at the source. 

Two major NASA space missions, OCO-2 and OCO-3, allowed researchers to detect and track changes in CO2 emissions from a single facility by using Europe’s largest coal-fired power plant. 

Quantifying Carbon in Space 

In the study, analysts use the space-based measurements produced by NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory or OCO missions, 2 and 3.

They calculate the CO2 emitted by the world’s 5th largest coal-fired power plant – Bełchatów Power Station in Poland. They then analyzed the plant’s CO2 emissions using OCO’s 2 and 3 mapping observations between 2017 and 2022.

The image below shows the mapping results. 

The researchers discovered that changes in CO2 levels during that period were consistent with changes in electricity generation. They also detected that plant shutdowns cut its overall emissions. 

The next image illustrates the OCO-2 satellite launched in 2014. It maps carbon footprint, both natural and man-made, as it orbits the Earth on various scales from regions to continents. Light-analyzing spectrometers in the spacecraft detect CO2’s signature hundreds of miles below it. 

The scientists, thus, concluded that space-based observations are useful in tracking carbon emissions at the source. 

A succeeding satellite, OCO-3, was created from the spare parts of OCO-2 mission. OCO-3 hung on the underside of the International Space Station since 2019. 

The space instrument can make several sweeping carbon observations as the spacecraft passes over an area. In return, scientists can use those observations to make detailed mini-maps of an area of interest at a local scale. 

These findings were a surprise for the researchers as neither OCO instrument was meant to detect CO2 footprint from individual facilities like Bełchatów.  

Abhishek Chatterjee, project scientist for the OCO-3 mission at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Southern California noted:

“As a community we are refining the tools and techniques to be able to extract more information from the data than what we had originally planned. We are learning that we can actually understand a lot more about anthropogenic emissions than what we had previously expected.”

Tracking Carbon at the Source

Large emitters such as power plants are responsible for emitting about 50% of global CO2 footprint from fossil fuels. 

In the U.S., CO2 emissions of the electric power sector in 2021 were 1,551 million metric tons. Or that’s about 32% of total U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions of 4,903 million metric tons. 909 million metric tons (59%) are from coal. 

In the case of Bełchatów, it emits more CO2 per megawatt than other plants. That’s because it is a brown coal or lignite-fired plant. The government plans to close the power plant in 2036.

Most carbon emissions measurements are using estimates only or data available at the land surface. They represent calculations from fossil fuel consumptions and their expected emissions. 

Hence, in general, they don’t represent the actual atmospheric CO2 measurements. 

Ray Nassar, the study’s lead author and researcher at Environment and Climate Change Canada said the “finer details about exactly when and where emissions occur are often not available.” He further added that:

“Providing a more detailed picture of carbon dioxide emissions could help to track the effectiveness of policies to reduce emissions. Our approach with OCO-2 and OCO-3 can be applied to more power plants or modified for carbon dioxide emissions from cities or countries.”

With the help of OCO-3 mapping mode observations, the data generated can be used more specifically in tracking carbon emissions at the point source in the future. 

NASA said that this kind of space mission operation will extend for more years, 5 to 6 years. OCO-3 will work alongside another GHG observer aboard NASA’s space station. JPL manages OCO-2 and OCO-3 projects for NASA.

Making carbon measurements at the right time and at the right scale is critical. Space-based carbon observations hold huge promise in future efforts to monitor and provide information to help reduce CO2 emissions. 

Despite some limitations, this emerging Monitoring Verification and Support (MVS) system can play a key role in supporting carbon emission reductions to mitigate climate change and achieve goals set out in the Paris Agreement.

One of the National Football League (NFL) teams, the Houston Texans, will buy carbon credits from Occidental Petroleum subsidiary, 1PointFive, to offset the footprint of their flights to other cities. 

From soccer or football to basketball, sports are fun and recreational but some of them can be worse for the environment. But simply throwing a ball around is not the problem; it’s the professional part of big-arena sports, especially the logistics behind the event that poses a concern. 

American football, for instance, is one of the most popular and profitable sports in the world. Fans are so passionate that many are willing to travel anywhere to see the game and their favorite team play live. 

85% of GHG emissions by major sports events come from the travel and accommodation of fans. 

Add to this the separate carbon emissions of each football team for their air travel like NFL.

Some teams have a large entourage of nearly two hundred people traveling for each game. This includes players, coaches, front office staff, equipment staff, and all the equipment.

Carbon Footprint of NFL 

Together, the four major North American sports leagues – NBA, NHL, MLB, and NFL – emitted around 122,000 metric tons of CO2 from air travel alone.

And among them, it’s the football league that has the least carbon emissions as it has the fewest games. But the NFL also has the most carbon footprint per game. 

In fact, the carbon footprint of the NFL during a one-day event in the 2005 Super Bowl reached 1 million tons. That’s equal to ~900,000 metric tons of carbon footprint. 

In an estimate, here’s a comparison of the four professional leagues’ travel emissions. The NFL has the highest carbon footprint for 2018 and 2020, despite the decrease due to the pandemic. 

Source: Seth Wynes

But the football league has been working hard to address the carbon emissions of its major game events. The league created an environmental program called “NFL Green”. 

Leaving a Green Legacy

NFL Green projects ensure that the league’s big game or event makes a lasting impact in each host community. Since 1993, the program has earned recognition for the Super Bowl as the greenest professional sports event in America.

An example projects is a coral reef restoration along the South Florida coast. Others include recycling and tree planting in a local city park – Eagles Forest. 

In 2019, the NFL joined the Green Sports Alliance — an environmental effort that includes 600+ teams, leagues, and venues. They’re committed to reducing waste, conserving energy and water, and other measures to slash footprint while increasing the sustainability of professional sports. 

The NFL Green’s director once said in an interview: 

“One thing is how do we mitigate the environmental impacts? How do we lighten the footprint? And the second thing is how do we create an enduring green legacy that we can leave behind in each community?”

NFL Green also works closely with the stadiums and facilities hosting events to enhance recycling waste rates. A more climate-friendly initiative is the NFL stadiums using renewable energy certificates or RECs to power its major events.

Doing so not only provides funding but also allows the team to mitigate the GHG impact of its energy use. 

But more interestingly, one of the NFL’s teams, the Houston Texans opted to buy carbon credits to offset their travel emissions.  

NFL Team to Purchase Carbon Credits 

The Houston Texans is currently the worst-ranked team in the NFL. 10 of the team’s 21 pre- and regular-season games will be played in other cities this season.

That means the team’s players will be flying, as well as their fans, to the venue. To offset the football team’s carbon emissions, they’ll buy carbon credits from Occidental’s 1PointFive.  

The amount of credits isn’t disclosed, but it will be enough to cover three seasons of flights, said the team.

They’ll be generated by Occidental’s direct air capture project in the Permian Basin oilfield of West Texas. The DAC project will remove 500,000 tons of CO2 each year, storing it deep underground. 

DAC is a technology that captures and removes CO2 directly from the atmosphere, which is then safely stored underground in geologic formations. It offers a practical solution for hard-to-abate activities, such as air travel, to help achieve climate goals.

Through their carbon credits deal, the oil giant will become the football team’s Preferred Carbon Removal Partner. It will also work with the Texans to educate fans on the importance of carbon removal.

President of 1PointFive, Michael Avery noted:

“We are excited to work with the Houston Texans and for their purchase of carbon removal credits enabled by Direct Air Capture. We believe Direct Air Capture is an efficient way to help reduce an organization’s carbon footprint and provides a solution that is particularly well-suited to addressing carbon emissions associated with air travel.”

The Houston Texans are the first NFL team to buy carbon credits to offset their air travel footprint. The NFL football team will pay Occidental for the credits linked to a share of the carbon captured. 

The partners said the CO2 will be captured in “saline reservoirs not associated with oil and gas production”.

The DAC plant is under construction and is expected to be done in 2024.