LGBTQ+ rights are human rights: A look at the numbers

The LGBTQ+ rights movement was launched by the Stonewall Uprisings of June 1969, when Black transgender women mobilized in a spontaneous, days-long protest against police brutality. Since then, advocates and activists have called attention to the intersection between demands for increased LGBTQ+ representation and broader social movements to address disparities in incarceration rates, poverty rates, and climate change impacts:

Police brutality and incarceration: Research conducted by the Prison Policy Initiative has shown that LGBTQ+ community members are overrepresented at every stage of the criminal detention system nationwide. According to a survey conducted by the New York City Anti-Violence Project in 2012, almost half of LGBTQ+ community members who have had an interaction with law enforcement in the past year experienced police misconduct (e.g., unjustified arrest, use of excessive force, and entrapment). Data suggest that disabled members of the LGBTQ+ community experience heightened rates of incarceration, as do BIPOC LGBTQ+ individuals.

Homelessness: A study conducted by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law in 2020 found that LGBTQ+ community members are twice as likely to have experienced homelessness at some point in their lives compared to the non-LGBTQ+ population. Black transgender individuals have a staggering 41 percent chance of experiencing homelessness at some point in their lives.

Poverty rates and average earnings: The Williams Institute has also found that members of the LGBTQ+ community are 40 percent more likely to experience poverty, relative to their non-LGBTQ+ counterparts. Moreover, according to the Human Rights Campaign, LGBTQ+ community members earn 10 percent less than the average U.S. worker (based on median weekly wage data). Transgender adults are disproportionately burdened by poverty and unemployment, as are Black members of the LGBTQ+ community.

Access to health insurance and poor health outcomes: A 2017 study published by Harvard University found that LGBTQ+ adults are twice as likely to be uninsured than non-LGBTQ+ adults. The prevailing system of employer-sponsored health insurance limits healthcare access for LGBTQ+ individuals, who are twice as likely to be unemployed than non-LGBTQ+ adults. The study also found that LGBTQ+ adults were more likely to suffer from chronic and mental health conditions, and discrimination in medical settings. Disabled transgender adults experience even worse health outcomes compared to other members of the LGBTQ+ community.

Climate change impacts: In 2020, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) noted that LGBTQ+ community members were "at the highest risk" for climate disaster impacts due to the increased likelihood of being isolated, unhoused, and/or mistreated in emergency shelters compared to non-LGBTQ+ community members.

Socioeconomic burdens fall disproportionately on the LGBTQ+ community compared to non-LGBTQ+-identifying adults. On the flipside, universal interventions that extend the rights of shelter, healthcare, and a livable wage to everyone have the potential to afford the largest benefits to the LGBTQ+ community. For instance, the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law found in 2019 that a proposed federal minimum wage increase to $15 per hour would raise wages for nearly 1.5 million LGBTQ+ adults across the United States. An added benefit of such proposals, in contrast to more targeted initiatives, is that universal policy initiatives do not require self-identification and the risks that it entails, thus offering identity protections to members of the LGBTQ+ community. While pro-LGBTQ+ policies include and begin with gender equality protections, broader policy demands for universal housing, healthcare, livable wages, an end to violent policing and incarceration, and a habitable planet strengthen the movement for LGBTQ+ equality while also improving living conditions for millions of other U.S. residents.

Sachin Peddada

Assistant Researcher

Tanya Stasio, PhD

Researcher

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

Massachusetts' Renewables Requirements Only Apply to 86 percent of Electric Customers

Supplying 14 percent of customers electric demand, Massachusetts Municipal Light Plants (MLPs) are not required to comply with the Commonwealth’s Renewable Portfolio Standard or Clean Energy Standard. Both standards aim to reduce emissions from the electric sector by requiring increasing shares of electric sales to the other 86 percent of Massachusetts customers to be derived from renewable resources like wind or solar.

Instead, starting in 2030 MLPs will be required to follow the provisions of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standard that does not require additional renewable resources for compliance. While MLPs could choose to meet the GGES with wind and solar, they are not required to, and could meet the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standard with no additional wind or solar generation. AEC’s recent presentation on the topic demonstrates that requiring MLPs to comply with the Renewable Portfolio Standard would result in substantially higher levels of wind and solar in the Commonwealth today and into the future.

According to data analysis performed by the Massachusetts Climate Action Network, just 2 percent of total MLP electric sales were derived from renewable energy sources in 2020. In contrast, Clean Energy Standard requires investor-owned utilities (National Grid, Eversource, and Unitil) to certify 20 percent of their electric sales as renewable in 2020. In 2030, Clean Energy Standard requires investor-owned utilities to have 60 percent renewable electric sales; MLP’s requirement for wind and solar derived resources will still be zero.

MLP’s exemption from the Renewable Portfolio Standard hinders the Commonwealth’s efforts to meet statewide climate targets and supports MLP’s continued reliance on fossil fuel resources.

Tanya Stasio

Researcher

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

New Jersey Power Plants and Equity

New Jersey’s overburdened communities house 30 gas- and oil-fired power plants, almost half of the State’s total fossil fuel plants. Ten percent of schools in overburdened communities are within a mile of a fossil fuel plant compared to just 3 percent for non-overburdened communities.

According to a story map developed by the New Jersey Climate Change Resource Center, the State’s overburdened communities tend to overlap with those that face significant energy burdens (the share of household income spent on energy costs). This means that the communities that bear the brunt of pollution from fossil fuel-fired plants also face the steepest energy costs.

One way to address these inequities is to support overburdened communities through well-paying job opportunities. There are thousands of clean energy jobs in New Jersey counties that house large numbers of overburdened communities (e.g., Middlesex and Bergen County). Unfortunately, there are significant barriers to green jobs for marginalized groups.

Overcoming barriers to participation in the clean energy industry can provide these communities with better opportunities while improve equity within New Jersey’s energy sector.

Tanya Stasio, PhD

Researcher

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

Energy Burden Transparency in the Housing Market

Reproduced from: Sussman, R., Bastian, H., Conrad, S., Cooper, E., Tong, E., Sherpa, A. and Porfalatoun, S. 2022. Energy Labels Affect Behavior on Rental Listing Websites: A Controlled Experiment. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Available at: *https://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/b2204.pdf*

Low-income households face disproportionately higher energy burdens compared to households with higher incomes, in part because low-income housing tends to be more energy inefficient (i.e., relying on old heating systems, poor insulation, and less efficient appliances).

A recent study by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) found that renters are more likely to choose apartments with better energy scores (a measure of building energy efficiency that ranges from 1 to 10) when energy score information is provided. For example, those looking for rental units at or below $750 per month were willing to pay 1.5 percent more in rent (about $11 more) for a one point increase in energy score.

Apartments with high energy scores save tenants money and reduce their energy burden through cheaper energy bills. Encouraging landlords, or even better, requiring them to transparently report energy costs in rental listings, would allow renters to make informed decisions, reducing energy burden for low-income households and increasing energy savings in the process.

Tanya Stasio

Researcher

Jordan Burt

Research Assistant

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

Energy Burdens in the District of Columbia

Within a single town or city, households pay the same energy rates (all residential customers pay the same rate for energy on a per unit basis). However, even for the same size of house or amount of energy use, households with lower incomes spend a larger share of their income on their energy bill than higher-income households do, leaving less for other expenses like rent, healthcare, or college tuition.

Recent research by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) found that the median energy burden (energy costs as a share of income) in the United States is 3.1 percent: For example, in 2018, the U.S. median income was $62,000; therefore, half of households pay less than $192 and half pay more in energy costs.

In the District of Columbia, the median energy burden is only 2 percent, but lower-income households pay a lot more. Half of the low-income District households (defined by ACEEE as those which earn less than or equal to 200 percent of the federal poverty level, or $55,500 for a family of four) pay more than 7.5 percent of their income in energy costs (a household making $55,000 annually pays $340 or more per month). One in fourteen of District households are “severely” energy-burdened—meaning they pay more than 10 percent of their income in energy costs.

In 2018, half of all District households made more than $90,600, and half made less. The half that make more than $90,600 pay just 1 percent of their income in energy bills. In contrast, District households earning less than $27,000 per year spend almost 20 percent of their income on energy.

There are also racial/ethnic disparities in energy burdens both in the District and across the United States. According to ACEEE, households of color face higher energy burdens compared to their white counterparts. The inequitable distribution of energy burdens is confounded by several other disparities facing racial/ethnic minority populations. For example, because of historical and systemic racism, racial/ethnic minorities on average earn less income, are less likely to own a home, and have poorer health outcomes.

Most policies to address energy burdens aim to either provide energy bill relief (e.g., the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) or the Weatherization Assistant Program (WAP)) or rebates for energy efficiency upgrades that reduce energy consumption. For instance, the District‘s Sustainable Energy Utility (DCSEU) offers rebates for the purchase of energy-efficient appliances, making energy savings more attainable for low-income households. More recently, states have started to work towards capping energy burden. For example, New York State developed an initiative called Reforming the Energy Vision (REV), which sets an energy cost target of 6 percent of income for low-income customers. Similar policies exist or are in the works for California and New Jersey.

In our report, Equity Assessment of Electrification Incentives in the District of Columbia, we identify three priorities to ensure equitable decarbonization efforts; one of which is to prevent existing energy burdens from worsening. Addressing disparities in energy burden provides more money to spend on other key expenditures that maintain household’s quality-of-life, such as healthcare, childcare, and college tuition. This increased spending also puts more money into the community, spurring economic growth.

Tanya Stasio

Researcher

Elisabeth Seliga

Assistant Researcher

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

Massachusetts' Electrification Progress is Falling Short

About one-third of Massachusetts’ emissions come from the buildings sector. In 2019, over 75 percent of households in Massachusetts used fossil fuels to heat their homes; only 17 percent used electricity (much of which is old-fashioned and inefficient “electric resistance” heating). Electrification—or switching from fossil fuels (like gas and oil) to heat our buildings, to using modern electric heat pumps—has been identified as the best least-cost strategy to reduce emissions from buildings in the Commonwealth.

A recent article from the Boston Globe calls out Massachusetts’ slow progress on electrifying homes. In order to meet the Commonwealth’s decarbonization goals, an average of 100,000 homes per year over the next 30 years must be switched over to electric heating. However, just 461 homes made the switch in 2020. More broadly, according to data from the U.S. Census American Community Survey, the share of homes in Massachusetts using electricity for heating has only gone up by about 1 percent from 2015 to 2019.

Despite the declining costs of high-efficiency electric heating equipment like air-and ground-source heat pumps, widespread adoption of heat pumps is held back by physical barriers such as incompatible infrastructure and informational barriers like inadequate information and status quo bias. Moreover, for low- and moderate-income households, access to credit and the high upfront cost of heat pumps can be a challenge.

To meet the Commonwealth’s 2050 climate goals, policymakers need to establish large incentives for heat pumps, provide subsidies for low-income and rental housing upgrades, and increase education and outreach to increase information availability and access. Without action, households will likely install new gas systems, with an average lifespan of 15 to 30 years, that will not only slow progress on meeting Massachusetts’ climate targets but will cost these families more over time.

Tanya Stasio Researcher

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

Gas Utilities Explore Hydrogen as a Decarbonization Strategy

To meet state and local climate goals, gas utilities across the United States are looking towards alternative fuel sources such as hydrogen and biogas—also referred to as renewable natural gas (RNG)—to decarbonize their future gas supply. Along with maximizing energy efficiency and making further investments in gas infrastructure, recent planning documents from gas utilities like National Grid and Washington Gas highlight a shift towards low and zero-carbon fuels such as RNG and hydrogen.

Hydrogen is not an energy source itself; it is an energy carrier. There are several types, or “colors”, of hydrogen that are distinguished by the energy source and process used to produce it. “Green” hydrogen—which is produced through electrolysis of water using electricity from renewable sources such as wind or solar—releases zero greenhouse gas emissions when burned for energy. Green hydrogen itself is not a zero-emission fuel source: If leaked directly into the atmosphere green hydrogen is an indirect greenhouse gas and its combustion has been found to emit nitrogen oxides (NOx), which is a criteria air pollutant. Since it can be mixed with fossil-sourced gas, green hydrogen is attractive to gas utilities who want to continue to use their existing gas pipelines while attempting to comply with climate mandates.

Several economic, technical, and infrastructure barriers stand in the way of using green hydrogen in decarbonization:

Green hydrogen is more expensive than its dirtier counterparts (e.g., hydrogen made using fossil fuels), fossil fuels themselves, and grid electricity.
Hydrogen production is inefficient. The International Renewable Energy Agency estimates that 30 to 35 percent of its energy is lost during electrolysis.
Hydrogen poses a risk to public safety. Hydrogen molecules are more likely to leak through pipeline imperfections and escape existing gas pipelines; hydrogen can also degrade the materials used for pipelines.
Due to insufficient infrastructure, and regardless of demand, hydrogen could only be injected into existing gas pipelines to make up 5 to 15 percent of total gas volume.

Even if these barriers could be overcome, an important question remains: Is the production of green hydrogen the best use of renewable resources?

Electrification, or the replacement of fossil-fuel dependent technologies (like gas and oil heating systems or gasoline-powered motor vehicles) with those that rely on electricity, is an alternative decarbonization method gaining traction across the United States. When sourced from renewables, heating our homes with electricity rather than gas or gas mixed with hydrogen, can significantly reduce emissions without the safety concerns of piped gas and costly infrastructure upgrades needed to make hydrogen work.

As the United States works towards electrifying sectors throughout the economy, the demand for electricity, and subsequently the demand for renewables, will rise. The use of green hydrogen as energy storage in time periods when the supply of renewables exceeds electric demand may be a viable option worth comparing to other storage technologies, but maintaining and improving costly gas delivery infrastructure is far less likely to make sense economically or socially.

Tanya Stasio Researcher

Joshua Castigliego Researcher

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

The Inequality of FEMA Aid

As the world’s temperatures rise, extreme climate events like severe heat, wildfires, and flooding, are occurring more frequently. These events can have a devastating and costly impact on the communities affected.

The purpose of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is to help communities hard hit by disaster by providing aid to rebuild and prevent future damages. Unfortunately, a 2019 NPR investigation revealed that the federal disaster aid disbursed by FEMA disproportionately favors the white and wealthy, regardless of need.

The investigation found that after a disaster Black households’ wealth declined on average while white residents grew wealthier. Part of the reason behind this disparity lies in FEMA’s cost-benefit calculations, which are designed to minimize taxpayer risk. Residents that own their own homes receive more aid, residents that have high incomes can claim substantial tax refunds from the IRS (while the lowest incomes families can claim nothing at all), and residents that have good credit are more likely to secure loans to rebuild. What happens next is a faster recovery for affluent neighborhoods and a sluggish recovery for communities in need.

In addition, programs like the FEMA buyout program, provide opportunities specifically for homeowners. The buyout program allows homeowners to volunteer to sell their homes to FEMA: providing them with funds to relocate. FEMA then converts the land for use in reducing future disaster risk (e.g., creating a green space to reduce flood risk). These buyouts are awarded in predominately white neighborhoods where more families own their homes.

Low-income and communities of color face a disproportionate burden when it comes to the impacts of climate change. Aid from organizations and agencies like FEMA should be designed to help the communities that need it most. Federal policy can exacerbate existing wealth and race disparities in the United States, or it can help to right historical wrongs. Including equity considerations in aid calculations will balance the scales and ensure that the communities that are hardest hit by extreme climate events receive their fair share of aid, regardless of their income, credit background, or property-ownership status.

Tanya Stasio Research Assistant

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

The "Colors" of Hydrogen

The appropriate role of hydrogen in achieving global climate goals—especially in hard to decarbonize sectors—is an important area for consideration in today’s climate plans. Although hydrogen itself is a zero-emission fuel, it can result in substantial upstream greenhouse gas emissions depending on the method used to produce it.

Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source. Hydrogen is produced from an energy source through various processes such as electrolysis, steam methane reformation, or gasification using either fossil fuels directly or electricity produced from renewables, fossil fuels or nuclear. Not all methods of hydrogen production are equal when it comes to climate impacts. Several categorization systems exist to distinguish between hydrogens made from different fuel and electric sources. For example, the North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE) categorizes hydrogen into different “colors” based on initial energy source and production process.

A 2018 policy briefing from the Royal Society reports that about 95 percent of global hydrogen production is sourced from fossil fuels including:

Grey hydrogen extracted from gas using steam methane reformation,
Brown/black hydrogen extracted from coal using gasification.

Other types of hydrogen are starting to gain traction as various industries work to decarbonize, such as:

Green hydrogen produced by electrolysis of water, using electricity from renewable sources such as wind or solar resulting in zero carbon emissions, and
Blue hydrogen produced from fossil fuels (i.e., grey, black, or brown hydrogen) where carbon dioxide is captured and either stored or repurposed.

The industry group that promotes hydrogen use produced a study suggests that a combination of green and blue hydrogen can meet the world’s hydrogen demand and be cost competitive compared to grey hydrogen (fossil gas derived hydrogen) by 2035.

Utilities across the United States (and around the world) claim that green hydrogen has an important role in decarbonizing their future gas supply and meet local and state climate goals. In theory, hydrogen could be injected into existing gas pipelines to make up a small percentage—5 to 15 percent—of the total gas volume.

The U.S. Congressional Research Service has found that major infrastructure upgrades will be needed before we see a higher share of hydrogen blended with conventional gas. Hydrogen molecules are smaller than methane and therefore more likely to leak through pipe imperfections and even permeate gas pipelines; hydrogen can also eat away at common materials used for gas pipelines.

Hydrogen may have a role in a decarbonized future, but there are substantial technological and infrastructure challenges to its use in heating and providing electricity. Hard to decarbonize processes or sectors (e.g., transportation, high-heat industrial equipment, etc.) may benefit the most from utilizing hydrogen to achieve greenhouse gas reductions.

Joshua Castigliego Researcher

Tanya Stasio Research Assistant

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

Juneteenth – Continued Support for Racial Justice

Last year, during the height of a pandemic that disproportionately impacted marginalized populations, a wave of calls and actions against racial inequity was renewed. AEC stood in solidarity with demands for racial justice then and continues to do so now. Though the movement has sustained momentum, it is imperative that we recognize not only the continued injustices committed in the last year, but that these injustices have deep systemic roots.

Juneteenth, a holiday marking the official emancipation of slaves on June 19, 1865, was declared a state holiday in Massachusetts last year, after widespread calls for concrete recognition. Other states had done the same prior to 2020, including Hawaii, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Beyond this, many private corporations have incorporated Juneteenth into their calendar, either through giving a day off or taking a moment of pause to recognize the painful racial history of the United States.

Environmental justice and racial justice go hand in hand. Black communities disproportionately suffer from several environmental harms including proximity to industrial facilities, power plants, and hazardous sites, exposure to emissions, and the effects of natural disasters. Due to these disparities, the Environmental Justice Movement is rooted in black history.

This Juneteenth, we at AEC want to recognize the Black Americans that are fighting for environmental justice across the United States. A recent web article by the global environmental organizing campaign Greenpeace calls out eight Black activists and their organizations for their work fighting environmental injustices:

· Savonala “Savi” Horne: Executive Director of the Land Loss Prevention Project, an organization that provides legal assistance to Black farmers and landowners in North Carolina in danger of losing their land.

· Chantel Johnson: Founder of Off Grid in Color (OGIC), an organization that fosters self-sufficiency in communities of color.

· Tanya Fields: Founder of the Black Feminist Project which centers on food justice, and economic development for underserved woman and youth of color.

· Rue Mapp: Founder of Outdoor Afro, Rue works to provide Black communities with opportunities to connect with nature and the black history tied to natural areas in the United States.

· Christopher Bradshaw: Founder of Dreaming Out Loud, an organization that strives to improve economic opportunity and access to education and a healthy environment for marginalized communities.

· Peggy Shepard: Co-Founder of WE ACT for Environmental Justice which addresses environmental protection and environmental health policy, particularly for low-income communities and communities of color.

· Jeaninne Kayembe: Co-Founder of The Urban Creators, an organization that utilizes food, art, and education to nurture resilience in the local community.

· Omar Freilla: Founder of Green Worker Cooperatives, Omar works with worker-owned green businesses to support the local economy while prioritizing democracy and environmental justice.

Our thanks to these activists and to BIPOC-led organizations for driving campaigns to depend environmental resources and the human communities that live in and rely on them. For more resources on the intersection of equity, race, the BLM Movement, and the environment, visit our resources page.

Tanya Stasio Research Assistant

Myisha Majumder
Research Assistant

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

Royal Dutch Shell Ordered to Cut Emissions

Royal Dutch Shell, a global oil company based in Europe, is one of the most profitable and largest companies in the world. In early February 2021, Royal Dutch Shell announced an update to its net-zero emissions strategy, breaking down key goals and facts about the company, including that the Company’s total carbon emissions had peaked in 2018, along with oil production peaking in 2019. The net-zero emissions goal was announced in 2020, with a goal of achieving a 45 percent reduction by 2035 and carbon neutrality by 2050. The February update provided incremental targets to 2050, using 2016 as a base year. Other components to the update included increasing carbon, capture, and storage capacity and increasing carbon offsets, a measure our blog series has covered before.

In 2018, thousands of Dutch citizens, along with seven environmental and human rights organizations filed a case asking the Hague District Court to order Royal Dutch Shell to cut emissions in line the Paris Climate Agreement; Shell is responsible for about 1 percent of annual global emissions and invests heavily in oil and gas. Last week, the Court ordered that Royal Dutch Shell cut its net carbon emissions by 45 percent by 2030, compared to 2019 levels. The decision followed after the Court determined that Royal Dutch Shell’s current emission reduction plans were not sufficient; the ruling greatly speeds up Royal Dutch Shell’s public goals and makes them more concrete and actionable.

Not only did the ruling speed up the timeline for the company’s emissions reduction goal by 5 years, but it also changed the baseline year to 2019, likely requiring larger reductions than the original 2016 baseline.

The Court did not order any explicit steps towards achieve this goal, allowing Royal Dutch Shell freedom in planning its shifted pathway. Without rules to guide the Company in reaching the new goal, it is possible Royal Dutch Shell may exploit loopholes in the ruling. Despite this flexibility, Royal Dutch Shell noted its disappointment and intent to appeal the decision in a media announcement on the day of the ruling.

All in all, this unprecedented ruling sets the stage for future legal action against major polluters.

Tanya Stasio Research Assistant

Myisha Majumder
Research Assistant

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

The Misuse of Carbon Offsets: The Mass Audubon Example

For governments and organizations, carbon offsets play an important role in achieving emission reduction targets. Offsets are an “additional” climate benefit – preserving a forest that would have been cut down, planting trees, or investing in renewable energy projects – that “offsets” the emissions from polluting activities.

In theory, the use of carbon offsets allows some flexibility in emissions reduction that is essential to achieving climate goals but in practice, some organizations are taking advantage of the system and ultimately creating more emissions in the process.

In 2015, the Massachusetts Audubon Society, a conservation nonprofit that manages preserved forests in western Massachusetts, applied to participate in California’s forest offset program and claim carbon credits for conserving forest. As part of their application, they noted that they could log almost 10,000 acres of forest but will opt for preservation in exchange for carbon credits. As a result, the organization was awarded over half a million carbon credits, earning them about $6 million from oil and gas companies who bought their credits.

The issue with this transaction is the premise that buying carbon credits from Massachusetts Audubon Society preventing logging of its trees, in other words, these trees would have been cut down were it not for participation in the program. Given that the Society is a conservation organization, and not a timber company, it is unlikely that the land was destined for intense logging. Ergo, no emissions were actually prevented and instead, more emissions were allowed by selling of these carbon credits to fossil fuel companies who substitute the credits for their out actions to reduce climate change. The flaw is in the design; the California offset program creates the incentive to claim offset benefits for forests that are not under threat for logging.

This is just one example of the potential misuse of carbon offsets. In a study of California’s carbon offsets program, researchers found that--because forests for which credits were awarded were never under threat of logging--30 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent credits, worth over $400 million, were awarded in excess of emissions prevented. Again, this is a flaw in the design of the program; regulators calculate the regional average of carbon storage and landowners of forests with a higher carbon storage can earn credits for the difference.

Without rules to ensure that carbon saving actions are performed because of the carbon credits – a concept called ‘additionality’ – carbon offset programs can unintentionally cause a net increase in emissions. Program developers and policymakers do well to keep these potential “loopholes” in mind when designing programs. Without careful design, carbon offsets are vulnerable to misuse.

Tanya Stasio Research Assistant

This is a part of the AEC Blog series