"East Africa 500 Million" Project

As our regular readers know, the GRO Foundation is a for-profit social impact organization dedicated to helping lift communities out of poverty, by creating sustainable livelihood and social impact projects. These are funded by implementing afforestation, reforestation, and wildlife conservation projects in order to generate ISO-14064 Certified Carbon Credits for sale.

For example, the GRO Initiative – “East Africa 500 Million" Project is designed to plant 500 million trees that contribute to the mitigation of climate change and meet the eligibility criteria of CDR Scope 14 for the afforestation and reforestation of degraded public land with low initial biomass.

The GRO Initiative is dedicated to creating 100% new forest cover exclusively on degraded public land with low initial biomass managed by a dedicated community-based organization with no access to funding for reforestation.

The Initiative uses a decentralized approach of aggregating multiple small and large reforestation sites operating under the same methodology, monitoring, and reporting plan. Use of the land is granted by the respective local authority together with a guarantee of suitability for tree planting and a recommendation of which native trees are to be planted. Last but not least, there must be a guarantee of non-logging or replacement for a minimum period of 60 years.

The GRO Initiative primarily generates returns by selling Carbon Credits and Carbon Credit Futures via Brokers, and Exchanges.  It also aims to directly sell initiative Partnerships to organizations that aim to integrate “Plant a Tree” incentives of “Certified Green” labels into their marketing.

As a further means of raising funds, GRO has launched the Blockchain GRO Token. This token is aimed at individuals who want to support reforestation and social impact projects long-term but need the added incentive to either earn from future Carbon Certificate sales or to have themselves or their organization become certified as green.

So why am I telling you something you, dear regular reader, already know It is because the carbon offset market has received a lot of deservedly negative publicity in exposures by sources as diverse as The Guardian Newspaper investigative team and social commentator John Oliver. We in the GRO community heartily support and applaud such active journalism and encourage our members to be on the alert for, at worst, fraudulent and at best untrue claims of carbon offsetting by companies great and small. I will give an example of such irregular activities below but first, let me address the question:

What are Carbon Offsets?

Carbon offsets are a mechanism that allows individuals, organizations, and companies to take responsibility for their greenhouse gas emissions by supporting projects, such as those of the GRO community, that reduce or remove carbon dioxide (CO2) or other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. The concept is based on the idea that emissions from one source can be compensated for by reducing emissions or capturing carbon elsewhere.

This is how carbon offsets typically work:

Measuring emissions: The first step is to measure the emissions produced by a person, organization, or company. This can involve calculating the amount of CO2 or other greenhouse gases emitted directly (e.g., from burning fossil fuels) or indirectly (e.g., from electricity consumption or transportation).

Setting a baseline: A baseline is established to determine the emissions that need to be offset – e.g. by my car, my hot showers, my jetting to holiday destinations etc.. It represents the amount of emissions that would occur without any intervention or reduction measures.

Identifying offset projects: The next step is to select and support projects that reduce or remove greenhouse gases. These projects can take various forms, such as renewable energy initiatives (e.g., wind farms or solar installations), GRO’s reforestation and afforestation efforts, energy efficiency programs, or the deployment of technologies that capture and store CO2 emissions.

Verification and certification: It is crucial to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of offset projects. Independent third-party organizations verify and certify the projects to ensure they meet specific standards and criteria. These standards vary but commonly include additionality (the project must result in emissions reductions beyond what would have happened anyway), measurement and monitoring of emissions, and long-term sustainability. We GROers welcome the most intense scrutiny of our activities.

Purchase and retirement of offsets: Once the offset projects are verified and certified, carbon offsets can be purchased from them. The number of offsets needed depends on the amount of emissions that need to be offset. When offsets are purchased, they are typically “retired,” meaning they cannot be resold or double-counted.

Offsetting emissions: By retiring carbon offsets, the emissions produced by you or me, an organization, or a company are effectively balanced out. The reduction in emissions or removal of CO2 achieved by the offset project compensates for the emissions produced elsewhere, resulting in a net neutral or lower carbon footprint.

Let me emphasize: GRO does not claim that carbon offsets are a silver bullet for addressing climate change. Our measures are most effective when combined with efforts to reduce emissions at their source, such as energy efficiency measures, transitioning to renewable energy sources, and adopting sustainable practices.

Once again, we really strive to get it right. We invite scrutiny and welcome suggestions on how we can improve. We want to GRO.

“If a man were to perform every good work, yet fail in the least scruple to be entirely trustworthy and honest, his good works would become as dry tinder and his failure as a soul-consuming fire.”  – Abdu’l-Baha

Meanwhile, forest carbon offsets that are used by major corporations may not be effective and could even worsen global heating. A recent investigation focused on Verra, the leading certifier of forest carbon offsets in the $2 billion voluntary offsets market. The study analyzed a significant percentage of Verra’s rainforest offset credits and found that over 90% of them are likely to be “phantom credits” that do not represent genuine carbon reductions.

This raises concerns about the credibility of the credits purchased by well-known companies that promote their products as “carbon neutral” or claim that consumers can engage in certain activities without contributing to the climate crisis. However, doubts have been repeatedly raised regarding the effectiveness of these offsets.

The investigation, conducted by The Guardian, German weekly Die Zeit, and SourceMaterial, a non-profit journalism organization, utilized scientific studies and interviews with scientists, industry insiders, and Indigenous communities. Verra, based in Washington DC, operates various environmental standards and approves three-quarters of all voluntary offsets, including its rainforest protection program, which constitutes 40% of the approved credits.

Verra disputes the findings of the investigation, questioning the methodology used in the studies and highlighting the positive impact their work has had on preserving forests and channeling billions of dollars into conservation efforts.

The investigation revealed the following:

•          Only a few of Verra’s rainforest projects showed evidence of significant deforestation reductions, with approximately 94% of the credits having no climate benefit.

•          The threat to forests was overstated by about 400% on average for Verra projects, according to a study by the University of Cambridge.

•          Numerous companies and organizations, including Gucci, Salesforce, BHP, Shell, easyJet, Leon, and Pearl Jam, have purchased rainforest offsets approved by Verra for environmental claims.

•          Human rights issues were found in at least one offsetting project, involving forced evictions and tensions with park authorities.

To assess the credits, the investigation team analyzed three scientific studies that used satellite images to examine the results of various forest offsetting projects. These projects, known as Redd+ schemes, produce forecasts of deforestation reductions, which are then assessed by a third party approved by Verra. If accepted, these forecasts are used to generate credits that companies can buy to offset their own carbon emissions.

The studies revealed discrepancies between the credits approved by Verra and the actual emission reductions estimated by scientists. However, Verra claims that the studies’ conclusions are inaccurate and argues that the methods used cannot capture the true impact on the ground.

While the studies acknowledge their limitations, they provide broad agreement on the ineffectiveness of the projects compared to Verra’s predictions.

The investigation’s findings have significant implications for companies relying on offsets as part of their net-zero strategies. Urgent changes are needed to improve the system for measuring emission reductions and restore trust in carbon markets.

Several companies mentioned in the investigation, including Shell and Gucci, provided statements defending their use of credits or expressing plans to re-evaluate their offsetting practices. The offset market as a whole is deemed broken by some experts, emphasizing the need for alternative approaches.

We at GRO don’t believe the market is broken. We are building it organically, tree by tree, from the bottom up. GRO with us.