Integrity in Offsets: Finite Carbon's Flawed Forest Projects

The recent Guardian article spotlighting flaws in certain forest carbon offsets by Finite Carbon has stirred considerable attention and rightly so. As the offsets ratings agency commissioned to review these projects, we have a crucial responsibility to ensure the integrity of carbon credits available in the market.

We highlighted significant issues with the projects in question, particularly the Sealaska project. This project was found to have been manipulated severely, a fact that not only undermines the credibility of the offsets but also violates the ethical guidelines that should govern environmental stewardship.

It's important to understand the broader context in which these findings sit. While three Finite Carbon projects were reviewed and highlighted, they do not represent the entirety of Finite Carbon's portfolio. These projects were selected by the commissioning reporter likely because of their known issues — rather than at random, and as such, the analysis was limited to these examples. However, it's worth noting that the broader statistical review of the CARB registry's projects (used by Finite Carbon) by CarbonPlan suggests an over issuance closer to 29.4%, not 79% as reported from our limited review. This discrepancy points to a need for broader and more comprehensive reviews to accurately assess the quality of carbon credits across the market.

Nevertheless, our analysis calls for a much higher level of rigor and responsibility in the carbon market. The type of manipulation observed in the Sealaska project required considerable effort as the project boundary was in some cases drawn around individual trees or on small islands; we believe this to be immoral. Responsible forest managers would have known that many of these trees were not at risk of harvest. It is imperative for Finite Carbon, and any carbon credit issuer, to cease operations on such projects once flaws are publicly identified. Renoster is committed to transparency and integrity in our reviews.

Anyone can commission us to assess a carbon project, and our findings are made public after nine months, contributing to a more transparent and reliable carbon market. While we stand by our findings and the statements that we made in the Guardian article, it is essential to approach the issue of carbon offsetting with a nuanced understanding. The challenges highlighted by this situation should serve as a catalyst for improvement in the industry, pushing for better standards and stricter oversight to make sure carbon credits genuinely contribute to combating climate change.