Using nature to pardon environmental pollution

The document examines the risks of using agricultural soil carbon sequestration as carbon offsets. It highlights technical failures in measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV), the non-permanence of biological carbon compared to fossil carbon, and social risks such as land grabbing and the marginalization of small-scale farmers. The author argues that 'Climate Smart Agriculture' often serves as greenwashing for agribusiness corporations. Instead of carbon markets, the report recommends using National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) to prioritize food security, tenure rights, and sustainable rural livelihoods.

• Soil carbon sequestration is fundamentally different from fossil fuel emission reductions because biological carbon is non-permanent and can be rapidly released back into the atmosphere through human activities like ploughing or natural events.
• Technical challenges make the use of agricultural offsets unviable, including high costs and extreme uncertainty in Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV), with some forest carbon measurements showing errors between ±50% and ±1000%.
• Carbon offsetting in agriculture poses significant social risks, including the potential for land grabbing, violation of land tenure rights for indigenous communities, and poor financial returns for smallholders, such as in a Kenya pilot project where farmers earned between $1 and $5 per year.
• The 'Climate Smart Agriculture' framework is criticized for lacking environmental criteria and social safeguards, often acting as a vehicle for agribusiness giants like Syngenta and Yara to promote GM seeds and herbicides.
• The report recommends moving agricultural climate action outside of carbon markets, suggesting that adaptation be addressed through National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and mitigation through finance-based instruments like Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs).
• Effective reduction of agricultural emissions requires a multi-dimensional approach that includes demand-side management, specifically reducing food waste and lowering meat consumption to reduce methane (CH4) emissions and deforestation.

APA

Carbon Market Watch (2015). Using nature to pardon environmental pollution. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/USING-NATURE-TO-PARDON-ENVIRONMENTAL-POLLUTION_WEB_final.pdf

Chicago

Carbon Market Watch. Using nature to pardon environmental pollution. 2015. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/USING-NATURE-TO-PARDON-ENVIRONMENTAL-POLLUTION_WEB_final.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Carbon Market Watch |title=Using nature to pardon environmental pollution |date=December 2015 |url=https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/USING-NATURE-TO-PARDON-ENVIRONMENTAL-POLLUTION_WEB_final.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{carbonmarketwatch2015using, author = {{Carbon Market Watch}}, title = {{Using nature to pardon environmental pollution}}, institution = {Carbon Market Watch}, year = {2015}, month = dec, url = {https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/USING-NATURE-TO-PARDON-ENVIRONMENTAL-POLLUTION_WEB_final.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }