Balancing greenwashing risks and forest carbon sequestration benefits: A simulation model linking formal and voluntary carbon markets

IF 4 2区 农林科学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Ram Ranjan
{"title":"Balancing greenwashing risks and forest carbon sequestration benefits: A simulation model linking formal and voluntary carbon markets","authors":"Ram Ranjan","doi":"10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103317","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Voluntary carbon markets (VCMs) offer energy-intensive firms a cost-effective means to reduce carbon mitigation expenses through promoting forest conservation. However, concerns about greenwashing may deter firms from using these options, which are susceptible to illegal forest harvesting. This study examines whether firms purchasing carbon credits from forestry-based communities can help strengthen forest conservation, mitigate project risks, improve environmental outcomes, and reduce abatement costs. We examine a large Indian steel firm, with an annual production capacity of 4 million tons, issuing green bonds to fund afforestation in Himalayan forest communities. Using industry-level average emissions, abatement costs, and output data for Indian firms, we develop a dynamic optimization model to determine optimal abatement strategies, considering the risk of future forest carbon loss from VCMs. The model, utilizing examples and data from existing carbon sequestration programs in the Himalayan states, offers insights into promoting high-integrity VCMs through formal emission market linkage. Findings suggest that firms' involvement in compliance emissions markets provides an alternative route to accessing affordable carbon credits when abatement costs are high. Additionally, engaging in the VCM reduces expenses related to emission reduction targets. However, with elevated greenwashing risks, firms reduce their use of green bonds in VCMs. Participation in the VCM positively reinforces forest conservation and enhances environmental services when greenwashing risks are absent, further lowering carbon mitigation costs. To enhance VCM integrity, further research is needed on how community conservation norms influence illegal harvesting.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":12451,"journal":{"name":"Forest Policy and Economics","volume":"168 ","pages":"Article 103317"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forest Policy and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934124001710","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Voluntary carbon markets (VCMs) offer energy-intensive firms a cost-effective means to reduce carbon mitigation expenses through promoting forest conservation. However, concerns about greenwashing may deter firms from using these options, which are susceptible to illegal forest harvesting. This study examines whether firms purchasing carbon credits from forestry-based communities can help strengthen forest conservation, mitigate project risks, improve environmental outcomes, and reduce abatement costs. We examine a large Indian steel firm, with an annual production capacity of 4 million tons, issuing green bonds to fund afforestation in Himalayan forest communities. Using industry-level average emissions, abatement costs, and output data for Indian firms, we develop a dynamic optimization model to determine optimal abatement strategies, considering the risk of future forest carbon loss from VCMs. The model, utilizing examples and data from existing carbon sequestration programs in the Himalayan states, offers insights into promoting high-integrity VCMs through formal emission market linkage. Findings suggest that firms' involvement in compliance emissions markets provides an alternative route to accessing affordable carbon credits when abatement costs are high. Additionally, engaging in the VCM reduces expenses related to emission reduction targets. However, with elevated greenwashing risks, firms reduce their use of green bonds in VCMs. Participation in the VCM positively reinforces forest conservation and enhances environmental services when greenwashing risks are absent, further lowering carbon mitigation costs. To enhance VCM integrity, further research is needed on how community conservation norms influence illegal harvesting.

平衡 "洗绿 "风险与森林固碳效益:连接正规和自愿碳市场的模拟模型
自愿碳市场(VCMs)为能源密集型企业提供了一种通过促进森林保护来减少碳减排支出的经济有效的手段。然而,对 "洗绿 "的担忧可能会阻止企业使用这些容易导致非法砍伐森林的方案。本研究探讨了企业从林业社区购买碳信用额是否有助于加强森林保护、降低项目风险、改善环境成果和减少减排成本。我们考察了印度一家年产量达 400 万吨的大型钢铁公司,该公司发行绿色债券,为喜马拉雅森林社区的植树造林提供资金。利用印度企业的行业平均排放量、减排成本和产出数据,我们开发了一个动态优化模型,以确定最佳减排策略,同时考虑到氯乙烯单体未来造成森林碳损失的风险。该模型利用喜马拉雅山脉各邦现有碳封存项目的实例和数据,为通过正式的排放市场联系促进高完整性的自愿碳封存项目提供了见解。研究结果表明,当减排成本较高时,企业参与履约排放市场为获得可负担的碳信用额提供了另一条途径。此外,参与自愿碳市场可减少与减排目标相关的费用。然而,由于 "洗绿 "风险增加,企业减少了在自愿碳市场中使用绿色债券。在不存在 "洗绿 "风险的情况下,参与自愿碳市场可积极加强森林保护和提高环境服务,从而进一步降低碳减排成本。为了提高自愿碳市场的完整性,需要进一步研究社区保护规范如何影响非法采伐。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Forest Policy and Economics
Forest Policy and Economics 农林科学-林学
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
7.50%
发文量
148
审稿时长
21.9 weeks
期刊介绍: Forest Policy and Economics is a leading scientific journal that publishes peer-reviewed policy and economics research relating to forests, forested landscapes, forest-related industries, and other forest-relevant land uses. It also welcomes contributions from other social sciences and humanities perspectives that make clear theoretical, conceptual and methodological contributions to the existing state-of-the-art literature on forests and related land use systems. These disciplines include, but are not limited to, sociology, anthropology, human geography, history, jurisprudence, planning, development studies, and psychology research on forests. Forest Policy and Economics is global in scope and publishes multiple article types of high scientific standard. Acceptance for publication is subject to a double-blind peer-review process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信