UPTAKE Webinar Series: Mitigation Deterrence and Unrealistic Expectations: The Future Costs of Forest Carbon Offsets

CDR Communities Events
, , , ,
1

The next webinar on the latest published papers on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) research will focus on the paper ‘Mitigation Deterrence and Unrealistic Expectations: The Future Costs of Forest Carbon Offsets’.

:studio_microphone:Speaker: Johannes Emmerling, Centro Euro-Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici (CMCC)

:studio_microphone: Moderator: Daniel Fisher, UN-REDD Finance Specialist at United Nations Environmental Programme

:studio_microphone: Panelist: Kathleen Ceulemans, Land Life

:spiral_calendar: 11 February 2026, 2 pm - 3 pm I ZOOM, online

Register in advance :backhand_index_pointing_right: here.

Abstract:

This study examines the economic and societal impacts of using Forest Carbon Offsets (FCO) as a negative emissions technology in climate mitigation strategies. FCO includes afforestation, reforestation, and reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) initiatives aimed at achieving global climate targets, such as limiting temperature rise to 2 °C by 2100. Despite their potential, challenges such as the impermanence of carbon storage, overestimation of carbon removal, and mitigation deterrence—where reliance on FCO reduces other climate actions—persist. Using the WITCH integrated assessment model, this study analyzes the effects of FCO on energy sector investments, carbon pricing, and mitigation costs under scenarios with perfect foresight, myopic behavior, and varying degrees of forest carbon loss (FCL). Results indicate that heavy reliance on FCO leads to mitigation deterrence, with renewable and carbon capture investments decreasing by 8.6 % and 31 %, respectively, while fossil fuel investments increase by 1 %. Scenarios with 100 % FCL by 2045 could increase global GDP loss by 0.5 percentage points, surpassing the costs of not using FCO. Non-OECD countries, more vulnerable with lower economic resilience, could face mitigation costs up to 1.7 percentage points higher than OECD countries in similar FCL scenarios, raising equity concerns in climate policy. This research underscores the need for careful FCO management, accurate carbon sequestration estimates, and equitable policy frameworks to prevent moral hazards and ensure effective climate action. Clear definitions of which emissions can be offset versus those requiring direct reduction are essential to prevent over-reliance on offsets and maintain a balanced mitigation approach.

The webinar format will consist of a 20-minute presentation and a 10-minute discussion with an invited expert stakeholder, followed by a 30-minute open discussion (1 hour total).

960×540 56 KB

2

If you missed the webinar, the full record is available here :backhand_index_pointing_down:

3

During the webinar, held within the UPTAKE monthly Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) series by CMCC, the session examined how forest carbon offsets may affect mitigation pathways and costs, with a focus on mitigation deterrence, non-permanence risk, and distributional impacts across regions. The discussion combined integrated assessment modelling insights with a project developer perspective on how high-integrity forestry projects are designed, verified and monitored.

Key takeaways:

  • The modelling results suggest that wide availability of forest carbon offsets can lower near-term mitigation costs, but may also reduce incentives for energy-system decarbonisation, affecting the deployment of renewables and other mitigation options.

  • A central risk highlighted was non-permanence (e.g., disturbances such as wildfires): if credited removals are later reversed, “catch-up” mitigation can become more costly than in scenarios without offsets.

  • The analysis pointed to equity and burden-sharing implications, with a large share of potential offsets occurring in non-OECD regions, while demand and financing often come from OECD countries.

  • The session also discussed how reliance on offsets can impact innovation and long-term costs, including through lower investments in R&D and CCS, which may slow down future cost reductions in key technologies.

  • From the implementation side, the discussion emphasised the importance of high-integrity standards (robust due diligence, monitoring, third-party verification, and buffers for reversal risk), as well as emerging regulatory frameworks aimed at strengthening credibility.

If you’d like to continue the discussion, feel free to share questions or comments below.