Skip to main content

In 10 years, wildfires have destroyed almost all of the 100-year forest buffer in California carbon trading system

by Sangam Paudel, Sep 1
2 minutes read

Offsetting projects such as forestry schemes often contribute some of their credits into a buffer pool that acts as an insurance mechanism against hazards such as fires or diseases. If such hazards occur (and thus the carbon absorbed by these trees get released), the buffer pool can safeguard the carbon savings linked to the offsets; this is important for carbon offsets because under California rules, carbon savings linked to offsets need to be guaranteed for at least 100 years.

green trees under white sky during daytime

However, in just 10 years, wildfires have destroyed almost all the buffer forests designed to last 100 years, making it virtually impossible that these carbon offset buffers will last the next 90 years, especially as forest fires risk getting worse.

So what?

The findings that show that most of California’s carbon trading systems’ 100-year buffer have been wiped out have questioned the efficacy of forest carbon offsets programs, especially as risks such as forest fires and increased disease and pest prevalence are likely to worsen in the years to come. In the near term, such risks and their impacts might inform the insurance mechanism which has been found to be severely undercapitalised.

However, the implications of these findings extend much deeper, posing questions to the very act of forest carbon offsets. Might there be more efforts placed into mitigating wildfires which gives greater consideration into indigenous ways of forest management, or the diversity of crops that are planted or protected for offsets? Might forest offset efforts shift to regions with lower fire or disease risks? Or might those efforts be too little too late given increasing wildfire and disease risks in many parts of the planet? Could such setbacks in the carbon offset programs direct more effort towards mitigation by direct carbon emissions reductions rather than by the use of offsets?



by Sangam Paudel Spotted 90 signals

Have you spotted a signal of change?

Register to receive the latest from the Futures Centre.
Sign up

  • 0
  • Share

Join discussion

Related signals

Our use of cookies

We use necessary cookies to make our site work. We'd also like to set optional analytics cookies to help us improve it. We won't set optional cookies unless you enable them. Using this tool will set a cookie on your device to remember your preferences.

For more detailed information about the cookies we use, see our Cookies page.

Necessary cookies

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. You may disable these by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Analytics cookies

We'd like to set Google Analytics cookies to help us to improve our website by collecting and reporting information on how you use it. The cookies collect information in a way that does not directly identify anyone. For more information on how these cookies work, please see our 'Cookies page'.