You probably couldn’t pick Kazakhstan out on a map—even though it’s the ninth-largest country in the world.

But Kazakhstan is a superpower in its own right.

This little-known former Soviet state hosts seven of the twelve largest producing uranium deposits in the world.

Kazakhstan, using American technology, went from producing 1 million pounds annually to over 46 million pounds annually in 20 years and becoming the world’s largest producer of uranium.

In 2022, it was the top uranium producer, mining 43% of the world’s uranium at 46.8 million pounds. To put that in context: Kazakhstan produced more uranium than the next four countries combined.

The renewed proliferation of nuclear power around the world has made Kazakhstan a hot commodity.

Only it hasn’t controlled its own uranium destiny.

Kazakhstan needed two crucial things to be able to secure a pathway to monetization of its uranium riches:

uranium refinement and enrichment infrastructure, and
trade agreements to access uranium sales to utilities around the world

Russia took quick advantage of Kazakhstan’s plight, providing both trade routes and uranium processing infrastructure. Certain companies in the west, like Cameco, took advantage also, which we will get to later.

For the last three decades, one-third of global uranium supply has been under the control of Rosatom, the state-owned Russian company created under the Russian President, Vladimir Putin’s watch.

But this is now changing in real time…

Russia has tried to implement a different kind of nuclear warfare: control over the energy security of the United States.

You see, Rosatom provides nearly one-third of the enrichment services and one-fifth of the uranium for U.S. nuclear power plants.

“Currently, we’re reliant on Russia for nuclear fuel.”
– former ExIm Bank Advisor Rich Powell

What does that mean?

1 in every 10 homes in America is powered by Russian enriched uranium.

Russia has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to use that reliance as leverage—as when it threatened to cut off nuclear fuel access in 2014, or when it did cut off natural gas supplies to Europe in 2022.

That alone is a grave national security threat to the U.S. But it gets worse…

The uranium that Russia doesn’t have direct control over is rapidly coming under the domain of another country—one that is even more likely to use it as a weapon, China.

Never Wake a Sleeping Giant

In the last decade, China has increased its nuclear power generation by 400%. And they’re somehow still accelerating their nuclear buildout.

Currently, one-third of global nuclear reactors under construction in the world are in China.

And they’re planning to build at least 100 more.

It’s all part of a plan to become the largest producer of nuclear power in the world in just seven years.

But China has struggled to produce the uranium required to fuel those reactors. In 2023, it’s expected to mine just 15% of its domestic uranium demand.

And its uranium resources are rapidly shrinking.

Chinese Uranium Resources Declining

At the current rate of decline, China’s entire uranium resources at any price point will last less than a decade. And that’s if it builds zero new reactors.

China is well aware that to secure its economic growth it must be able to secure lower cost clean base load energy.

Has America lost its Nuclear Advantage?

The U.S. could power about four of its nuclear reactors with domestic uranium production.

The other 92 require imported uranium.

From where? Mother Russia.

In 2021, 54% of U.S. uranium purchases came from Russia or former Soviet states (Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan).

The U.S. can’t buy more from Canada and Australia, the other two main producers as those nation producers have sold and hedged their production in long term contracts.

China has bought the dragon’s share of uranium in every other major producing country.

Here’s the bottom line…

If the U.S. does not immediately build a domestic uranium industry,
Russia and China could easily destroy the United States’ secure supply of nuclear power.

U.S. leadership, including Trump, Biden, Congress, and the Secretary of Energy, recognizes the danger this presents.

Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette says that the current state of uranium production “threatens our national interest and our national security.”

So last year, a bill was introduced in the House and Senate: the National Opportunity to Restore Uranium Supply Services In America Act of 2022.

In case you missed the acronym, the bipartisan message is loud and clear: NO RUSSIA. Russia’s influence will be expelled from the U.S. uranium market.

Almost 30 years to the day that the Russian US HEU agreement was inked in Washington DC, Senator Joe Manchin introduced Bill S.452 on February 2, 2023.

If passed in Senate, it would require the Secretary of Energy to establish a Nuclear Fuel Security Program.

The Bill hit the floor on December 11th, 2023 and passed the House and will now move onto the Senate for a vote.

The U.S. government has officially reset the domestic uranium industry. And with that, power 91 nuclear power reactors that in total require over 50 million pounds of uranium to run rain or shine, day or night and supply its military nuclear fuel needs.

We have found a “value investors dream”.

This company we are highlighting in the report below has in the past valued the portfolio at almost a $1 Billion valuation.

Today, the company enterprise value (Market price minus cash and equitable securities) can be obtained for less than $30 Million.

Yet, just one of its assets, a uranium asset in the highest grade producing region in the world would be valued at $75 Million using a comparable peer valuation based on the $600 per hectare valuation the bankers just valued a large three way merger in the same mining district.

This is rare, unique and how one goes about value investing in the Energy Transition by finding discount to current value with considerable value in low risk jurisdictions that will benefit from Americas Nuclear Renaissance and Energy Transition.

Click here for a full report on the company.

Never bet against America, but rather benefit from America’s greatness.

Regards,

The www.carboncredits.com Team

The post BREAKING: The US House Passed A Bill That Just Repatriated The Nuclear Cycle From Russia’s Control appeared first on Carbon Credits.

As the world continues to grapple with climate change, forest carbon offsets have emerged as a promising solution. By preserving and protecting forests, we can capture and sequester carbon from the atmosphere, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Not only does this benefit the environment, but it also creates economic opportunities for communities that rely on the forest for their livelihoods.

Introduction to Forest Carbon Offsets

For years, companies have been given an option to deal with their environmental impact: cancel out their carbon pollution by paying for efforts that protect the forests. That’s essentially the idea behind forest carbon offsets. 

If you’re a landowner who wants to earn extra from keeping your trees standing, forest offsets suit you well. Or perhaps you’re a company owner willing to support forest protection initiatives, forest carbon offsets are perfect for you. 

Either way, let’s help you understand everything you need to know about this kind of carbon offset credit. From providing a detailed explanation of it to identifying its benefits and how to purchase it for your offsetting needs. 

What are Forest Carbon Offsets?

Forest carbon offsets involve a process where a forest, at risk of being chopped down or for other purposes, is protected in exchange for payment. This payment goes to the forest owner, which could be a government or private landowner, to prevent deforestation.

Once the owner and buyer close the deal, the forest area becomes a “carbon credit project.” Their agreement involves a commitment not to cut down the trees or be destroyed by fire. The organization or person managing this project sells these commitments and takes a portion of the money earned. 

On the other side, a company that pollutes can buy these credits to neutralize their emissions by a certain amount.

Trees are excellent at storing carbon in their structure, so when a tree grows larger, it can hold more carbon. This carbon storage also happens in soils and other vegetation. 

However, when a tree is cut down, the carbon it stores is released into the air. If the tree is used for timber, some carbon remains stored, but a significant portion is released into the atmosphere.

A forest carbon offset, therefore, represents a metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) of avoided or sequestered carbon. Emitters buy the offsets to compensate for their carbon emissions happening elsewhere.

What are the Types of Forest Carbon Offsets?

Currently, three forest project types qualify to generate carbon offsets: afforestation or reforestation, avoided conversion, and improved forest management (IFM). 

Each forest project type comes with its unique costs, benefits, and ways of accounting for carbon. Determining which one suits your property best is the initial stage in the exploration process. So, let’s differentiate each type to guide your climate mitigation decision.

Afforestation/Reforestation 

Afforestation, a vital environmental effort, revolves around reinstating tree cover on lands that were previously devoid of forests. These projects are fundamental in addressing deforestation, enhancing biodiversity, mitigating climate change, and contributing to ecosystem restoration.

However, embarking on afforestation initiatives often incurs substantial costs due to the comprehensive processes involved, including land preparation, tree planting, maintenance, innovation and technology, and long-term investment.

Avoided Conversion 

Avoided Conversion projects are crucial initiatives aimed at preventing the transformation of forested areas into non-forested landscapes. These projects, also called REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation), help fight climate change by safeguarding existing forest cover. 

But for this project to be considered eligible for carbon offset programs, project developers must substantiate that the land faces a substantial and imminent threat of conversion. 

READ MORE: What is REDD+? Development, Issues, and Solutions

Improved Forest Management (IFM)

IFM initiatives focus on optimizing the management practices of forested areas to enhance carbon sequestration, biodiversity, and overall ecosystem health. They aim to increase or maintain the carbon stored within forests, contributing to climate change mitigation efforts while ensuring sustainable use of forest resources.

Among these three forest types, IFM projects are the most frequently traded compliance offsets in California’s cap and trade program. 

According to a research by Haya et al. (2023), IFM projects provided 193 million carbon offset credits since 2008. This accounts for 28% of the total credits from forest projects and 11% of all credits generated in voluntary carbon markets.

Source: Haya et al. (2023). https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2023.958879

Developers of IFM projects must demonstrate that their forests are capturing more carbon than what would happen in a ‘business-as-usual’ situation across these carbon credit types.

Benefits of Forest Carbon Offsets

Well-designed and effectively executed forest carbon offsets can serve as incentives to reduce deforestation and forest degradation. They also aid in enhancing forest governance while promoting support for the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities. 

Supporting forestry projects through carbon offsets offers the following benefits:

Preserving intact forests and those that are mostly untouched to safeguard biodiversity and the services provided by ecosystems. Indigenous peoples’ territories are crucial in this regard, as they have a proven track record of effectively conserving forests.
Improving the management of production forests and plantations to supply essential materials, enabling a shift from a fossil-fuel-based to a bio-based economy. This involves developing alternatives for materials like cement and steel, which have a high carbon impact.
Boosting tree presence in agricultural lands by implementing diverse agroforestry systems and offering stronger financial and social incentives to communities.
Reviving degraded land across the planet to enhance ecosystem-based services. Similar to other nature-based solutions, this restoration should always be done collaboratively with local communities in ways that suit the local context.

Each of these aspects could be integrated into a program providing forestry carbon offsets. They represent a more effective approach to land stewardship, resulting not only in carbon storage but also in numerous advantages.

Forest Carbon Offsets in Climate Change Mitigation Strategies

Managing forests to capture carbon presents an opportunity to reverse the impacts of man-made climate change. Global greenhouse gas (GHG) levels have swiftly risen, with almost half of these emissions happening in the last 40 years.

Forecasts from climate models foresee rising global temperatures, higher sea levels, and shifts in weather patterns. These shifts result in severe droughts, floods, and the intrusion of rising sea levels into freshwater reserves, threatening drinking water sources.

Research indicates that communities dependent on agriculture or in coastal regions will likely face significant challenges due to global warming.

Studies suggest that capturing carbon in forests can play a substantial role in lessening the effects of climate change. Currently, according to the US Forest Service, forests in the US absorb around 16% of the nation’s emissions generated from burning fossil fuels.

Furthermore, forests deliver diverse ecosystem services to the public, like managing water quality and quantity while providing habitats fostering biodiversity.

Market for Forest Carbon Offsets

In 2022, about 30% of all carbon offset credits for forestry projects came from voluntary registries. These projects, like IFM, REDD+, and afforestation, include various types. 

The research by Haya et al. also pointed out that the U.S. was the main contributor to forest offset credits from IFM projects, accounting for 94% of them. Most of these credits were registered under the CARB (California Air Resources Board) compliance carbon offset program, with almost half originating from U.S. forest projects.

So far, most forest offset credits from all registries have been given to projects that reduce tree harvesting significantly, aiming to prevent carbon losses in forests compared to standard scenarios.

To date, sellers of forest carbon are big forestland owners seeking to diversify their forest-based revenue streams. 

Pricing of Forest Carbon Offsets

Prices for carbon offset credits in voluntary markets have dropped in the past year. Forest carbon offsets belong to nature-based solutions represented by the Nature-Based Global Emissions Offsets (NGEOs).

While the prices of all VCM offsets have been hit, the decline in NGEO prices stands out because of the premium they were trading at over the other offsets last year.

Several reasons caused this decline. Global economic challenges, such as high inflation, ongoing conflicts like the war in Ukraine, and lasting pandemic effects slowed economic growth in 2022 and continued into 2023.

Moreover, there hasn’t been progress on a unified standard for carbon credit markets globally at COP27. This lack of advancement is holding back growth in voluntary markets.

READ MORE: The Collapse of NGEO Carbon Prices: An In-depth Analysis

Nonetheless, emitters are actively seeking ways to offset their residual emissions, particularly in hard-to-abate sectors. If you’re one of them, the following section will help guide you on how to buy forest carbon credits for your offsetting needs.

Process of Purchasing Forest Carbon Offsets

Buying forest carbon offsets is pretty much similar to purchasing other types of carbon credits. You can opt for directly getting them from project developers, which means from a forestland owner. You can also buy the offsets from other providers. 

For instance, you can look for a broker. Brokers can make it easier and quicker for you to get the offsets you need, especially if you need a lot of them. 

A broker also handles all the transactions on your behalf, and this purchasing process doesn’t require long-term contracts. But it would cost you a bit more. 

Another provider would be the retailers, who can give you at least basic information about the offsets they’re selling. Usually, they hold an account on a carbon registry and retire the offsets on your behalf.

Alternatively, you can also buy forest carbon offsets from an exchange. There are several carbon exchanges or trading platforms that provide these offsets. They often collaborate with registries to enable trading transactions. 

Purchasing forest offsets from a trading platform would be easy and fast, and may cost less than brokers. However, you might find it more challenging to evaluate the quality of the offsets. 

Calculating Your Carbon Footprint

But before you look for the right offset provider, it’s best that you know how many credits you need. And that means calculating your carbon footprint first and deciding how much of it you have to offset. 

Remember that one forest carbon offset represents one tonne of carbon emission. So, if you or your company emitted a thousand tons of carbon dioxide or its equivalent in one year, you’ll need 1,000 offsets to neutralize all of them. 

After calculating your total footprint, you can then determine the amount of offsets to purchase. Below is our comprehensive guide on how to calculate how many offset credits you need. 

READ MORE: How to Calculate Carbon Credits?

Purchasing and Using Offsets

Once you have purchased the offsets, using them does not just involve writing off your carbon footprint. It also includes some kind of responsibility and a couple of considerations. 

For instance, you need to be confident that the offset credits are from projects that deliver real carbon emission reductions. That entails knowing the project details (e.g. type, location, environmental impacts, carbon reduction/removal, etc.). 

You also have to ensure that the offsets are generated following credible and trusted carbon credit methodologies. This is crucial to make sure that you get the real value of each dollar you invest in the offsets. 

More remarkably, forest carbon offsets are now under growing scrutiny as some projects are found to underdeliver the claimed reductions. This brings us to the last part of this guide.

Criticisms & Drawbacks of Forest Carbon Offsets

One major issue is additionality. It refers to whether or not the reductions would have happened even without the offset project. For example, a forestry project wouldn’t provide additional action on climate if it’s protecting a forest that was never in threat of being chopped down. 

Another drawback of these offsets is permanence. It means the carbon reduction or removal should remain for 100 years to be permanent. 

While some forest projects are capable of achieving that, others are at risks of reversal. This happens when different factors come into play that destroy the forests. Wildfires are the biggest culprit.

Several forestry projects have been burned down by fires, reversing the reductions they promise to offer. For example, a study suggested that California’s buffer pool, a kind of self-insurance program to cover reversal, severely lacks capital. 

So long as the buffer pool stays solvent, the permanence of carbon offsets remains intact. But the study showed that the buffer pool for California’s forest carbon offset projects is unlikely to insure its integrity for a century. 

Additionally, the buffer pool didn’t account for the increase in wildfire risks. Failure to do so means that the forest fire-prone state will most likely see high offset reversals. 

Both Quality and Quantity Matter

There’s also the issue surrounding the mathematics on how much carbon is really captured and stored in a specific area. 

Forests vary widely—from tropical to temperate and boreal, each with unique ecosystems, species, and risks. They also store different amounts of carbon that can change due to seasons, events like tree cutting, wildfires, and droughts. 

Moreover, calculating carbon in forests is complex. It depends not just on science but also on policy choices about data use, which changes to consider, and which forests to involve. Some worry that certain governments’ practices might let companies sell offsets from replanting after they cleared forests initially.

The case of Canada’s forest carbon accounting offers an example. According to a report from the country’s Natural Resources Defense Council, the calculation used is misleading and damaging. 

The authors noted that the government didn’t account for the carbon released by wildfires. However, it includes the carbon captured by forest regrowth even if there’s no logging and no human activities at play.

READ MORE: Is Canada’s Forest Carbon Emissions Accounting Misleading

Finally, the biggest criticism thrown at forest carbon offsetting projects is their ineffectiveness in actually reducing carbon emissions. A group of investigative journalists claimed that more than 90% of Verra’s REDD+ projects likely do not represent real reductions. 

The studies that journalists used for their analysis involve different methods and time periods. They also considered various ranges of Verra REDD+ projects, while noting that such studies do have some limitations. Yet, they noted that the data indicated consensus on the lack of effectiveness of the projects versus what Verra had approved. 

Forestry Carbon Offsets: Closing Thoughts

Forestry carbon offsets have emerged as a promising tool in combating climate change by preserving and protecting forests to capture and sequester carbon. This multifaceted approach not only benefits the environment by reducing carbon emissions but also presents economic opportunities for forest-dependent communities.

However, the market for forest offsets faces challenges, including pricing discrepancies, additionality concerns, and complexities in measuring carbon sequestration. Issues related to permanence and accurate quantification also remain critical areas demanding attention and robust evaluation within the offsetting paradigm.

Amidst these complexities, forest carbon offsets present both opportunities and challenges in achieving carbon neutrality. Collaborative efforts among governments, project developers, and market stakeholders are essential to address concerns, establish transparent methodologies, and ensure the credibility and effectiveness of forest carbon offset projects.

The post Forest Carbon Offsets: Everything You Need To Know appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Boosting Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) is crucial alongside rapidly cutting emissions to meet the Paris Agreement’s climate targets. A detailed report, analyzing the industry’s various key aspects, looks at the current state of the CDR. 

The authors found that there’s a big difference between what countries plan to do and what’s needed to meet the global climate goals. 

The report is done by experts in the field of CDR, who are authors of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports and lead major CDR research projects.

Bridging the Carbon Removal Gap

To keep warming below 2°C, the world needs to remove vast amounts of CO2 from the air. CDR includes ways to capture CO2 and keep it stored in places like soil, oceans, or products. Examples include planting more trees, using certain technologies to capture carbon and storing it. 

RELATED: Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and CCS: A Primer

For the first time, the report estimated the total amount of CDR currently being deployed globally. It found that most current CDR (2 billion tonnes of CO2 a year) comes from traditional methods like planting trees. That translates to 99.9% of virtually all current CDR, primarily through afforestation and reforestation. 

Only a very small fraction – 0.1% or 0.002 GtCO₂/year – comes from new CDR methods, as shown below. Examples of novel CDR are Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), biochar, and Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS).  

But to limit warming to 1.5°C or 2°C, these removal methods and reducing deforestation must increase by a lot in the next few decades. By 2050, land-based removals double in 1.5°C pathways and increase by 50% in 2°C pathways relative to 2020 levels. 

Countries need to work hard to meet these goals by using policies and better land management to amplify these efforts. It’s a big challenge, but it’s essential to tackle climate change.

The “CDR gap” size varies among scenarios based on how the world shapes the global economy toward net zero emissions. But right now, countries have limited plans to increase CDR beyond current levels, creating a significant shortage.

National Commitments vs. Concrete Plans

According to the report, around 120 national governments have a net zero emissions target, implying the use of CDR for residual emissions. However, only a few have actionable plans for developing CDR in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), particularly for new methods.

The chart above shows that CDR is crucial in scenarios to meet the Paris Agreement’s temperature goal, alongside emission reductions.

Closing the CDR gap, illustrated below, needs rapid growth of novel carbon removal methods. 

RELATED: Scaling the Carbon Removal Industry: The Urgent Push

The analysts suggest that novel CDR grows by a factor of 30 by the decade end and as much as 540 in certain scenarios. That growth goes up to a factor of 1,300 and as much as 4,900 in certain scenarios by 2050.

Innovation in CDR approaches has expanded significantly in recent years. It is evident in >$4 billion of public funds injected into Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) on CDR. Moreover, a total of about $200 million was invested in CDR from 2020 to 2022. 

Buyers of CDR credits have also shown growing support for novel methods. CDR purchases soared 437% in the first half of 2023. 

Public discussions about CDR are also increasing, yet awareness about it remains lower compared to other climate change aspects. Studies show that while people support research on CDR, they worry about its large-scale implementation. 

In particular, methods like afforestation, which seem more natural, receive better public perception compared to other CDR approaches. On Twitter, talks about CDR are rising, with most methods garnering positive sentiment, except for BECCS.

The Rising Profile of Carbon Removal

Given the uncertainties surrounding scaling up CDR, emitters can reduce reliance on it by swiftly cutting emissions and using energy more efficiently. 

Scientific scenarios outline various pathways to meet climate goals, suggesting various strategies like reducing fossil fuel use, switching to electric power in most sectors, stopping deforestation, and deploying both traditional and new CDR methods on land. 

Notably, new and innovative startups in the carbon removal sector show a strong dedication to fighting climate change by creating practical solutions to store CO2 in various environments. 

Though there are doubts about how well these methods can be scaled up, the substantial investments going into these projects highlight a growing belief in their crucial role in tackling climate change.

READ MORE: Carbon Removal Startups Are Finding More Places and Funds to Store CO2

The global effort to limit temperature rise requires a robust strategy to close the Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) gap. Balancing traditional methods with innovative techniques is essential. Governments and industries must prioritize CDR development alongside emission reductions for a sustainable, low-carbon future.

The post What it Takes to Close the Huge Carbon Removal Gap? appeared first on Carbon Credits.

As this year’s United Nations climate summit, COP28, continues to deliberate the most pressing climate change concerns, we’re sharing the top updates impacting the future of climate finance. Here are the top four highlights that stand out.

Oil and Gas Charter Aims 2050 Zero Methane 

Saudi Arabia’s Aramco and the UAE’s ADNOC, along with 29 other national oil companies, signed a non-binding agreement to target zero methane emissions and end routine flaring by 2030.

Overall, 50 oil and gas companies, which represents 40% of global production, committed to decarbonize their operations by 2050.

While Aramco and ADNOC have announced carbon reduction objectives, these targets don’t include emissions from customer fuel use. Sultan Al Jaber, ADNOC’s CEO and CO28 President, emphasized the need for more action, despite many national oil companies setting net zero emissions 2050 targets.

This initiative, called the Oil and Gas Decarbonization Charter, saw companies like PetroChina, Brazil’s Petrobras, TotalEnergies of France, ExxonMobil of the US, and BP and Shell from Britain signing on. However, unlike COP28 decisions, these commitments are voluntary.

Prepared ahead of COP28, these pledges aim to expedite the energy industry’s decarbonization. Yet, a non-profit representative noted that voluntary commitments from the industry may not be enough to address climate change adequately. What is more crucial is having government policies in place to drive swift and equitable transition away from fossil fuels. 

Canada Aims to Slash Methane Emissions by 75%

Canada has shared a new plan to cut methane pollution from its oil and gas industry by at least 75%. The potent gas contributed about 13% of Canada’s total emissions in 2021. 

The country’s Environment Minister made this announcement on the sidelines of COP28. 

Canada ranks among the top oil producers globally, with most methane emissions coming from oil and gas, agriculture, and waste.

Two years ago, the nation promised to create a plan to significantly lower methane emissions from oil and gas by 2030, aligning with the Global Methane Pledge.

The new draft involves stricter rules for Canada’s oil and gas sector, following global suggestions. It aims to stop routine venting and flaring, which emit methane, and introduce better leak detection methods.

RELATED: Canada Explores Options to Cap Oil and Gas Emissions

The federal government estimates that these new regulations will reduce emissions by 217 million metric tonnes of CO2e from 2027 to 2040. The government also plans to invest $30 million in a Methane Centre of Excellence. 

The proposed regulations also include third-party inspections and safety exemptions. However, Alberta and Saskatchewan, provinces rich in oil and gas, criticized the plan, calling it too costly and challenging. They argue that the federal government is intruding on provincial control.

The draft regulations will roll out in 2027, but opposition from the provinces may lead to further discussions and revisions.

Bhutan is The First National Registry Under CAD Trust 

The Kingdom of Bhutan has become the inaugural national registry to achieve full integration with the Climate Action Data Trust (CAD Trust) Metadata Layer, marking a significant milestone announced at COP28. 

This development positions Bhutan as a leader in regional climate action and aligns with the Paris Agreement’s Article 6 objectives.

Launched in December 2022, CAD Trust is an initiative led by the World Bank, the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA), and the Government of Singapore. It operates as a decentralized blockchain-based platform, aiming to promote transparent carbon market accounting, in accordance with the Paris Agreement.

READ MORE: Climate Action Data Trust Launched

Bhutan, known for its vast forests occupying over 72% of its land, holds a pivotal role as a ‘carbon bank’. The country contributes to global biodiversity and carbon sequestration. 

As the world’s first carbon-negative country, Bhutan’s integration into CAD Trust underscores its commitment to climate mitigation and proactive measures.

This integration ensures Bhutan’s climate mitigation efforts adhere to Article 6 guidelines by leveraging innovative digital infrastructure, including blockchain technology. This is to safeguard the accuracy of carbon credit data and prevent duplication, a critical principle of Article 6.

The development marks the beginning of an expanding network for CAD Trust. The platform will connect with other national and independent carbon market standards over the coming weeks and months.  

Tanzania’s Major Carbon Credit Deal

Tanzania has signed a significant carbon credit deal at COP28 covering 6 national parks across 1.8 million hectares. Parks included are Burigi-Chato, Katavi Plains, Ugalla River, Mkomazi, Gombe Stream, and Mahale Mountains.

The agreement involves Tanzania’s national park agency, Tanapa, and a local company, Carbon Tanzania. The country boasts 48 million hectares of reserved forests, which offers significant opportunities for carbon trading.

In a move coinciding with COP28, the deal aims to trade carbon credits while also preserving and managing the national parks, safeguarding their natural ecosystems and wildlife. This move positions the country as a key player in Africa’s carbon credit market.

Mohammed Enterprises Tanzania Limited, led by businessman Mohammed Dewji, will provide funding for the project. This deal follows an earlier preliminary agreement encompassing 8.1 million hectares in Tanzania, also directed towards carbon credit initiatives. That area represents about 8% of the East African nation’s total land mass.

RELATED: Tanzania Carbon Credit Projects Attract $20B from Companies

However, these deals have faced criticism for their potential impact on local lands and communities, drawing concern about neocolonialism. While developers assert that their projects follow stringent regulations and offer community benefits, critics question the agreements’ true impact.

Despite the criticism, these agreements could see vast land areas dedicated for carbon credit projects across Africa once finalized.

As COP28 unfolds, pivotal strides in carbon credit market and climate finance are apparent, spanning from oil and gas industry pledges to national initiatives and global registry integration. These developments emphasize the imperative role of collaborative efforts and policy implementations in tackling climate change.

The post The Top 4 Important Highlights at COP28 appeared first on Carbon Credits.