May 16, 2023Liked by Chris Lang

Interesting to read the UNFCCC secretariat's position on this...I attended a CfRN session at an event in Singapore earlier this month where the CfRN slide deck referred to the credits with a slide titled: 'the first UNFCCC-certified credits are available'.

Expand full comment

Thanks for this - when Kevin Conrad signed the RRUs™ deal with PNG in March 2021, he said,

“This is a big event globally as this is the very first time that (carbon) credits that have been approved by the UNFCCC are being marketed to an open forum to our consumers.”


And the REDD.plus website states,

“Each carbon credit or REDD+ Result Unit™ is issued by the national government to prevent leakage, eliminate double counting and seamlessly integrate into the global carbon accounting.”


It's perhaps surprising that the UNFCCC Secretariat hasn't asked the Coalition for Rainforest Nations to clarify the fact that its RRUs™ are not carbon credits.

Expand full comment

Of key concern is the term “ITMO” (Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes).

Of course, to perform mitigation, a scenario must exist in which some operation (1) is able to mitigate some other operation (2). To complicate matters, “outcomes” is thrown into the mix, which implies that both mitigation 1 and mitigation 2 each have a measurable outcome. Then the third complication, which is that these two supposed mitigations can be exchanged across distance and perhaps time, for the International Transfer. A fallacy exists at every juncture here. It’s a shell game; you would have better luck at sports betting.

If you could peel back India, for example, and find another sub-continent under there yet undiscovered, you might reasonably sell offsets from that land. But, there being no undiscovered lands, the entire planet was already fully involved in the carbon cycle BEFORE fossil-fuel burning began, so that ARE NO possible sources of mitigation.

Expand full comment