Cryptocarbon: The promises and pitfalls of forest protection on a blockchain

Abstract

In this commentary, we explore how blockchain is being leveraged to address the fundamental problems with market-based forest protection globally. In doing so, we consider the ways 'cryptocarbon' initiatives are creating new challenges that have so far escaped critical scrutiny. A blockchain is a distributed and immutable electronic database-a ledger of every transaction that has ever taken place on a network, with the data stored as cryptographically secured blocks, strung together in a chain. The technology is being increasingly hyped as applicable for a whole range of industries, social service provisions, and environmental management concerns. This includes the facilitation of natural asset market mechanisms, like Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+). The original aim of REDD+ was to incentivise conservation, making tropical forests more valuable standing than cut down. Multiple factors, including lack of consumer interest, created a deluge of supply. Ninety-five percent of the world's avoided deforestation credits, representing millions of hectares of conserved forest, were stuck without a buyer. Several flagging REDD+ projects are now hoping that blockchain technology can carry them to new heights of market capitalisation. However, like with any powerful new technology, the benefits remain ambiguous.

Smart forests and data practices: From the Internet of Trees to planetary governance

“…For instance, because up to 80% of deforestation has now been attributed to corporate supply chains, there are an increasing number of digital technologies from remote sensing to blockchain that are used to monitor, scan, and validate supply chains of forest-intensive products, including timber as well as palm oil, soy, and beef (cf. Howson et al, 2019). Through the use of such observational technologies, however, forests might primarily become visible as stores of timber or carbon sinks, but not as sites that sustain cultural narratives or indigenous cosmologies.…”

Climate Crises and Crypto-Colonialism: Conjuring Value on the Blockchain Frontiers of the Global South

“…The platform's developers suggest that Nori enables a win-win outcome for consumers and the climate (Gambill, 2019). However, as with any carbon off-set, these assets are a fetishized abstraction of an unfathomably complex biophysical system (Howson et al, 2019). Blockchain tokens are not capable of representing much more than a rough estimate concerning temporarily removed carbon over time.…”

Tackling climate change with blockchain

“…Self-executing code provides secure mechanisms for electronic collaboration that do not rely upon a central authority to mediate between transacting parties. These parties, who might not necessarily trust each other, can trust the authenticity of information held in their shared databases 8 .…”

“…This claim has attracted criticism. In reality, no payments to forest communities in Zimbabwe has ever been made in exchange for tree planting efforts, using Earth Tokens or any other mechanism 8 .…”

“…The Veridium project's tokens represent carbon that was sequestered in Rimba Raya's forest reserve several years ago. According to Enrici and Hubacek13 , no financial compensation makes it to the local communities paying the highest costs for these enclosures.Connecting carbon credits to cryptocurrencies is increasing market access8 , but despite offering a theoretically 'trustworthy', and accessible means of carbon commodity exchange, cryptocurrencies are not currently capable of accurately representing the dynamic materiality of forests, nor the communities that make a livelihood from them. After 25 years of carbon-offsetting, the writing on the wall for these schemes is becoming clear.…”