All language subtitles for Panorama.Big.Brands.Green.Claims.Uncovered.2024.1080p.WEBRip.x264-CBFM

Did you know that BA's domestic
flights are all carbon neutral?

Well, that's fantastic.

Better for the environment, I guess.

Did you know that your flight
here from Manchester to London

is carbon neutral?

That's a positive, I would say.

Even some of the biggest polluters

like to say they're doing their bit
for the environment.

Shell has a target

to become a net zero emissions
energy business by 2050.

But do these claims add up?

You have this massive activity,

with companies trying to
brandish their green credentials,

claiming that they're net zero,
that they're low-carbon,

that you can trust them.

We investigate an industry

that claims it can help companies
cancel out their carbon pollution.

With our project,
we protect trees, right?

The trees keep absorbing carbon
dioxide from the atmosphere.

We reveal all is not what it seems

with some of these
environmental projects.

And we speak to industry insiders.

At the time it was exciting,
it was the future, you know?

Now, 20 years later, it's like...

Sorry, kids. I tried my best, no?

With global temperatures rising,

are some of the world's
biggest brands doing enough

to help fight climate change?

Companies want us
to buy their stuff,

and for us to think that, therefore,

we somehow are contributing
to solve the climate crisis.

Sorry, but that's just bullshit.

The heatwave is continuing
across much of Europe today,

with the UK hitting its
hottest temperature on record.

Temperatures topped 40 Celsius
for the first time ever here.

It was the hottest day. I've never
known temperatures like it.

My son, he was in his shorts
and he had flip-flops on.

The boys were sunburned,
they'd been out in the sun all day.

Probably about sort of, like,
12:55, 12:50,

my son came in and said, like,

"There's a fire in
next door's garden."

So I put my hosepipe on,
got on the roof...

The smoke was getting
horrendous then.

I had a privet hedge down there,
and it was gone in seconds.

It went, "fwoosh",
and it was gone, like.

The sky was black. You couldn't
see anything. It was so dark.

The London Fire Brigade
has declared a major incident

in response to a surge in fires
across the capital.

And then I see this
massive big fireball,

then it spread across the field.

41 houses went down
in London that day.

The Fire Brigade says it doesn't
know exactly how the fire started

but says it spread quickly
because of the extreme heat.

I couldn't calm down for
two or three days, you know.

And it's not until
you finally sit in a chair

and then you realise,
everything's gone, like, you know?

And when you lose everything,
you lose everything, like, you know.

It was home, and...

I'd have liked to see my days out
here, really, you know,

but there you go.
That's what it is, and that's...

That's the rubble we're left with
now, like, you know.

We would never have reached
40 degrees in the UK

without climate change.

We will see more and
more heatwaves like this,

and they will get hotter and hotter

the more fossil fuels we burn.

The following year, 2023,

was the hottest around the world
since records began.

Climate change is impacting
our lives in all sorts of ways.

This is only going to get worse.

And, of course, heatwaves
are not the only dangers.

Extreme weather events.

A warm atmosphere can hold more
water vapour.

That comes out as heavy rainfall.

Our societies are built on hundreds
of years of very stable weather,

and now we've shifted the weather
very quickly to be quite different.

So this is not
a problem of the future.

This is happening already,
here and now.

Climate change is
the most fundamental

and existential threat
to our species.

The consequences are unthinkable,
and worse,

it has the potential to make our
planet unliveable.

Enough is enough.

We must act and we must all act now.

APPLAUSE

World leaders agreed
a global action plan.

L'accord de Paris sur le climat
est accepte.

CHEERING AND APPLAUSE

For the first time, the governments
of the world have a plan

to reduce climate change
and greenhouse gas emissions.

After two decades of trying,
the agreement is here.

The aim - to limit the increase
in the average global temperature

to well below two degrees Celsius
since preindustrial levels.

To achieve this,

countries would need to drastically
reduce their carbon emissions,

and, by 2050, stop adding
to the overall amount

of greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere.

The target became known as net zero.

In theory,
net zero makes total sense.

The problem is, we are very good at
putting carbon in the atmosphere,

but we don't actually have
any technology

to get a lot of carbon out
of the atmosphere.

What do we want?

CROWD: Climate justice!

When do we want it? Now!

Climate justice!
Climate justice now!

More than 170 countries
signed the Paris agreement.

Get your hands off me!

Protests ramped up around the world,
calling for faster action,

not only from governments
but business, too.

Right, how are we doing?
We're good.

Hair good, body good, face good?
Yes. Looking great.

After the Paris climate conference,

companies are under pressure
from governments,

governments are under pressure
from people,

to do something about
carbon and climate.

So companies wanted to take action.

But to do that, business
and industry have to change,

and reduce the amount of carbon
that's being produced.

Companies hit this realisation

that it's really tough.
It's very hard.

That's when suddenly you saw kind of
the boom in carbon credits.

So, what are carbon credits?

There are lots of different types.

The most popular are called
avoided deforestation credits,

and they work like this.

Carbon credit developers take on
the job of protecting a forest.

Because it's protected,

the forest can carry on doing its
job of absorbing and storing carbon.

Each tonne of carbon stored
in these trees

is worth one credit
that developers can then sell.

And this is how they work
for the companies buying them.

First, they calculate how much
pollution they're producing.

Next, they should
cut their emissions.

Then they can buy carbon credits

to help them cancel out
the pollution that's left.

What we are doing with credits
is we're saying,

"I want to help someone in another
part of the world

"reduce or remove carbon."

In principle,
that's a very good thing.

But if you're using that credit
generated

to offset your own emissions,

to say, "I'm going to pay someone
else to remove or reduce,"

then that's a very different thing.

BIRDSONG

Amazing, um...birdsong.

This is where one of the biggest
carbon credit projects began.

Kasigau, home to a company
called Wildlife Works.

It says it has a mission
to protect trees and wildlife

across around 200,000 hectares.

OK, how long have you been
working here? Two years.

I'm the executive office
coordinator.

When we visit the company,
we meet Patricia Kanyang'onda.

We ask her to show us around
and explain how the project works.

So what happens is, with our
project, we protect trees, right.

The trees keep absorbing
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

So we generate carbon credits.

She says not only do the trees
benefit, but local people do, too.

There's been so much done
for the community.

We've done a kitchen, we've done
toilets, we've given bursaries.

The thing about Wildlife Works
is the impact...

..yeah, it's the impact
on the community is...

..is amazing.

This entire place
would have been destroyed.

There was poaching, there was
slash and burn agriculture.

Mike Korchinsky, the founder,

I think he's a very smart person.

So it was a very crucial area
to focus on,

and that's why he chose it.

I could see that this was
a massive challenge.

How do people and wildlife
find a way to coexist,

using the same resources?

Mike Korchinsky first came to Kenya
on a safari holiday in 1997,

and never looked back.

The seeds for changing my life

happened on that vacation,
in Africa.

Stopping the loss of natural forest

is by far the most effective way
to slow climate change.

He loved it so much he stayed
and started a conservation project.

Wildlife Works was born.

The name Wildlife Works,
which is the name of our company,

came up during that trip.

If you want wildlife in the future,

you have to find a way
to make it work for those people,

because it's their land.

Three years later, Mike Korchinsky
became the majority shareholder

in one of the biggest ranches
in the area.

He says, before then,

it had been agreed that people
living there would leave,

but when the time came,
some didn't want to.

They are called the Waduruma.

They are mostly farmers,

but earn extra money by making
charcoal from burning trees.

They were evicted by the police
and bailiffs

after the ranch Mike Korchinsky
had bought into

went to the Kenyan High Court.

Wildlife Works rangers,
including Samuel Eregai,

were there when
the evictions took place.

Samuel Eregai says there WERE fires,

but they hadn't been
started deliberately.

And how did you feel about it?

Wildlife Works says the company

has never forcibly evicted anyone
from their homes.

Samuel Eregai stopped working
for the company in 2012.

We personally believe the private
sector has a very strong role

to play in the solution, in going
beyond doing no harm

to actually healing the planet
and solving problems.

Wildlife Works started selling
carbon credits to companies

looking for ways to offset
their pollution in 2011.

NGOs allowed projects like ours
to be financed

by generating credits if they're
protecting threatened forest.

Today, Mike Korchinsky's seen as one
of the big players in the industry.

He's become a very, very
influential person

in this world. He's at
all of the climate Cops.

I saw him at the last
biodiversity Cop in Montreal.

He's just... He's one of
the big beasts of this world.

Wildlife Works now sells

almost two million credits
every year from Kasigau.

The company is involved in projects

across Africa, South America

and Asia.

Last year, more than 500 million
carbon credits

were sold worldwide...

..almost half of them
from avoided deforestation projects.

No-one sees the world
quite like an airline.

They sell to companies

looking to cancel out
their carbon emissions now

and as part of their plans

to get to net zero in the future.

We envision a future
of net zero emissions,

and we're optimistic
about our path forward.

OVER SPEAKER:
This is Liverpool Street.

There's a lot of good people
who, on the most part,

are trying to do the right thing,
but companies

and brands don't tend to do stuff
that isn't going to give a return.

Companies definitely realise,
by appearing greener, you know,

you appeal to a certain demographic,
a certain audience,

and you can sell more products.

Companies drawing up plans
to get to net zero

fuelled a boom
in carbon credit sales.

They can be traded like commodities
on international markets.

That's the gold-rush moment,
when you see investors coming in,

and investment banks
which have commodity trading desks,

that traditionally trade
oil and gas,

start trading carbon offsets,
carbon credits.

So you see more brokers coming in
to buy carbon credits

and trade carbon credits
and the prices going up.

As sales of carbon credits
were soaring,

some scientists were having doubts.

Thales West worked
in the carbon credit industry

as a consultant and auditor
for ten years.

Back in the day,

I was really convinced that what was
being done

was essentially the best
that could be done,

and I had faith in the system!
HE LAUGHS

And I was also at the same time
falling in love with the idea

of doing research with science, etc,

to look at these projects
and to evaluate them -

are they really achieving
what they claim to be achieving?

To answer that question,
Thales West became an academic.

He studied 30 carbon credit projects
in six countries.

He concluded only one delivered
close to the reduction

in deforestation it claimed,

and many were overstating
the risk of deforestation,

resulting in too many credits
being sold.

We did find some evidence

that some projects were reducing
deforestation,

it's just that they were
not reducing

as much deforestation
as they claimed.

And that's also a problem,

because the more deforestation
you avoid,

the more offsets you can sell.

At around the same time,
another group of scientists

from Bangor and
Cambridge Universities

were doing similar research.

Neither study had enough data

to include Wildlife Works' projects
in their findings.

It's a real challenge

to be able to work out
how much deforestation

would have happened
in the absence of the project.

It's a genuine
intellectual challenge.

So, when you buy a carbon credit,

you believe that one metric tonne
of carbon has not been emitted

that would have otherwise been
emitted through deforestation,

had you not bought
that carbon credit.

And that's actually
remarkably difficult to demonstrate.

Like Thales West,
Julia Jones also looked at

how much deforestation
projects were preventing.

She says the benefit of many
projects was minimal,

because there was little risk

of trees being cut down
in the first place.

We found these kind of
forest conservation projects

have, on average,
slowed deforestation.

However - and this is the big but -

there are a substantial number
of projects

that are operating in places

with really quite a low background
rate of deforestation,

so perhaps it's not
really surprising

that there wasn't
a lot of deforestation to avoid.

And therefore they haven't
effectively slowed deforestation,

because there just wasn't
much deforestation

going on in the area
where they were occurring anyway.

If the academics were right,
then there was a big problem.

If the risk to trees
was being overstated,

then the environmental value
of the projects would be in doubt,

along with the claims
of the companies buying the credits.

It's a waste of money,

and we're also to some extent
fooling ourselves.

We think we're doing
something good. We are not.

And we are not investing
in something that can have an actual

impact when it comes to
mitigating climate change.

I wanted an answer to what the hell
a carbon neutral burger was,

for example, or a carbon neutral
flight or a carbon neutral whatever.

Journalist Patrick Greenfield

picked up on
what these scientists were doing.

He used their research to
scrutinise the environmental claims

of the companies
that had bought the credits.

What we were trying to do
was, very simply,

compare what real companies
were using for real claims

with the findings of these studies.

When he combined
the work of both studies,

he was surprised by what he found.

We very neatly ended up with a table
showing over 90% of these credits

were hot air, nothing, total mirage.

To begin with, I didn't really
believe it, to be honest.

That meant that many of
these carbon neutrality claims

were just nonsense.

I think it really reveals
something important,

which is that a lot of these offsets
that have been sold

on the voluntary carbon market
are essentially worthless.

The carbon credit industry
now points to another study

that rebuts the earlier research.

It challenges the calculations used
and says there are major flaws.

This new paper has been
submitted for peer review.

The City had been keen on credits,

but after the criticism
of forest credits was published,

their value collapsed.

Things had been brewing,
I think, in carbon markets,

really from about 2021,

and maybe we haven't really wanted
to face up to it,

that inconvenient truth

that we can't just go out and buy
these things called carbon credits

and hope that we can
fix the problem.

All the pricing
in the market crashed.

So we were talking to brokers

who literally were saying
they were getting calls every day

from developers who were willing now
to sell their carbon

credit stock for £5 or £2.

And these were carbon credits
that, as a single unit,

two weeks before,
they were looking for £50, £30.

As prices dropped,
sales rose last year.

December was a record month
for companies buying carbon credits.

We're seeing companies carrying on
as if nothing has happened -

and perhaps some of them
are genuinely uninformed -

but many of them are therefore
wilfully misleading the public

if they are making carbon
neutral claims

based on credits
that are in fact questionable.

BIRDSONG

In Kenya, Wildlife Works'
Kasigau project

has been supported by some of
the world's biggest brands.

The world now needs more energy

than ever before.
At the same time...

Companies like Shell
and Delta Air Lines

have bought credits from Kasigau.

..through the Paris agreement.

An example project that Shell
currently works with

is the Kasigau Corridor project
in Kenya.

Netflix is supporting some inspiring
nature-based projects

led by partner organisations
around the world

as part of its public
Net Zero + Nature commitment.

Netflix has also bought credits
here, almost 250,000 in 2021.

The following year,
it made a promotional video

with Wildlife Works. It starts
with a clip of former president

Barack Obama from another
Netflix documentary.

Over time, we've created
nearly a quarter of a million

protected spaces in almost every
country on Earth.

Nature is so resilient
if you just give it a chance.

The video showcases
what Wildlife Works describes

as the project's
major achievements.

This is the Kasigau Corridor
Redd+ project,

run by Wildlife Works
in Tsavo.

Karibu, Kasigau!

We're going to look at some of
the claims in the video.

What's been particularly pioneering
about this forest conservation

project is that, as well as
helping the wilderness,

it focuses on investing
into the community here, too.

It says Wildlife Works has made
a big difference

to the lives of local women.

A key part of this project
is empowering women

to take on vital roles
in the community.

In our society, women are not
considered anything.

We're travelling to meet
a group of women

who've all been employed
by Wildlife Works.

They want to speak anonymously,

because they're worried
about the impact

on the community and their families.

Most were grateful for
the opportunity to work.

I felt good, because having a job

was so much better
than it was before.

My children were doing well
in school,

and my salary was
good for my family.

But these women say
there was another side

to working for the company.

I was sexually harassed.

My boss tried to seduce me,
and I refused.

From that day on,
he started hating me.

He started doing
so many things to me

that made me feel like I'm nothing.

I was about to resign,
but I tried to be strong,

because if I left my job,
how would I earn a living?

I have a family to take care of.

We spoke to seven women
who alleged sexual harassment

dating back a decade.
Six mentioned a man called Erick.

This woman says some of
her colleagues felt pressured

into having sex with him.

Any worker there will tell you
about Erick's behaviour.

They say if you want to survive
here, you have to have sex with him.

I asked them, "What about you?
Did you do the same?"

They said yes, to secure their jobs.

One woman says when she refused
Erick's advances,

he touched her anyway.

It was in the compound
of Wildlife Works

and, to make it worse,
in the office.

He came towards the door. He peeked
outside to see if anyone was coming.

There was no-one there,
so he came towards me,

wanting to touch my breasts.

And he did touch my breasts.

I was a bit confused.
How could it be?

I just went to my house.

Emotionally, I was tortured.

A man called Erick
appears in the Netflix video.

..this wild space looked and felt
very different.

Before the project was started,
this area...

Erick Sagwe was Head of Security
for Wildlife Works in Kasigau.

One woman says, after
she refused to sleep with him,

he turned his attention
to her daughter.

Erick used to send my daughter
messages, saying he wanted to meet.

He wanted to sleep with her.

Me, from my side, I couldn't do it.

That's why he had
a grudge against me.

Two NGOs jointly investigated
the Kasigau project last year.

They found evidence
of sexual harassment over years.

The project had to suspend sales
of new Kasigau credits as a result.

Wildlife Works sacked two men,
one of them Erick Sagwe.

He's since been edited
out of the Netflix video.

Following the sackings,

the project was allowed
to sell new credits again.

What was interesting in the Wildlife
Works response to the report

was the attempt to deflect attention
away from the company responsibility

and saying, "Oh, those were
two rogue individuals."

How could that level of abuse
happen for a decade

and the company not noticing?

That says a lot about
the way the company was run.

Erick Sagwe says
the allegations against him

are entirely baseless
and without merit.

He says the allegations
were orchestrated

because of his ethnicity.

Wildlife Works says
as soon as it received the report,

it acted immediately. It says
Mike Korchinsky has apologised

to the women directly affected
and that the company has introduced

measures to guard against
such misconduct happening again.

MONKEYS SHRIEK

Morning, everybody,
and thanks for coming.

Seven years ago, Mike Korchinsky
shared some of the secrets

of his success at
a carbon credit conference.

He described his approach
to getting local communities

and governments
to work with his projects,

saying it's like dog training.

People and organisations
do what they're paid to do.

AUDIENCE CHUCKLES
OK? So kind of like the dog. Right?

I got a treat in my hand,

"I want you to sit down.

"You're going to get the treat."

All right? So that works great.

The dog sits down,
give him the treat.

The dog doesn't sit down,
don't give him the treat!

Mike Korchinsky says his comments
were intended as a frivolous way

to illustrate a broader discussion
about pay for performance,

they don't reflect
his respect for local communities,

national governments
and other partners

and that he regrets any offence
that may have been caused.

The Kasigau project has been
a big success for Wildlife Works.

Since 2011, it's generated
20 million carbon credits,

worth millions of dollars.

When credits are sold to people
and organisations, like Netflix,

the profit is split back in Tsavo.

Funds are distributed in three ways.

The promotional video says most of
the money goes to local people.

Most importantly, over 70% of
the proceeds go to the community,

where they vote
on how they're spent.

That sounds great -

but when we questioned
Wildlife Works about the numbers,

it appears they may not have been
as generous to the

community as the video suggests.

The company says,
in the nine years to 2023,

its net revenue was $90 million.

And this is how it says it gets
to 70% going to the community -

30.9 million to forest landowners,

25.8 million to
community-based operations

and 10 million, the smallest amount,

to funding community projects
that local people get to vote on.

Wildlife Works says 120,000 people
live in the project area,

there are nearly 8,000
forest landowners,

and its revenue share model

is one of the most generous
in the industry.

It says the project's created jobs,
improved health care,

funded new classrooms and preserved
wildlife and endangered species...

..and that the method used
to calculate carbon credit numbers

has been developed through
rigorous scientific study.

Since we wrote to
Wildlife Works and Netflix,

the promotional video
is no longer publicly available.

Barack Obama has declined
to comment, as has Netflix.

Shell says it buys credits
from projects

certified in accordance
with independent standards.

TRUCK HORN TOOTS

Delta says it plans to use
decarbonisation to get to net zero

by 2050 and has shifted away
from carbon neutrality and offsets.

There's no regulation
of carbon credits.

There is no global government
or local government

who's setting the rules.

People don't want
rules and regulations.

And in the vacuum of no regulation,

you're reliant on the institutions
to...do the right thing.

With no regulation of the credits
most companies buy,

the industry relies on verification
agencies to safeguard standards.

One of the biggest is called Verra.

It works with
carbon credit developers

to help calculate the number
of credits that can be sold.

Toby Janson-Smith is
one of its senior executives.

He's based in the States.

Verra has set standards that allows
carbon projects

to quantify the climate benefits
that they deliver

and then to generate carbon credits
that can be sold

into the carbon market to generate
funding to support those projects.

We've contacted an industry insider.
He's never spoken publicly before.

Manuel Estrada has worked
in the carbon credit business

since it started in the 1990s.

At the time, it was exciting,
it was the future. You know?

I was proud of myself.

You know, I was thinking,
"Yeah, when I have kids,

"I will be so proud saying, 'Well,
you know, I changed the world.'"

Now, 20 years later, it's like...

No, really. No, it's like,
"Sorry, kids, I tried my best," no?

Manuel Estrada was hired
by Verra in 2020

to look at how developers were
calculating the number of credits

they could sell from their projects.

He says he was concerned.

It could happen that,
just by switching method,

just the same project, with the same
activities and the same results,

would have a different
volume of credits.

So it was something
that was weird, no?

He says some of the developers'
calculations weren't credible.

His team started work

on what he thought would be
a more reliable method.

The idea of this methodology was
that it would change everything, no?

That was the idea.

But projects may see their potential
revenues decrease more than half.

We're talking about investments that
may be in the millions of dollars.

He says, when he was there,

some project developers were pushing
back hard against his proposals.

And I was there, you know? I can
tell you, you can feel the pressure.

You had a lot of project developers
that were like,

"No, we don't like these changes.
Why are you doing this?"

So, yeah, it was a difficult moment,

because you have a system
where everyone benefits, you know,

from not being too robust.

The system works like this -

verification agencies
approve credits

based on the threat to the forest

and the number of trees
to be protected.

More credits means more money -
not just for the developer,

but for the verification agency,
as well.

It gets a cut from each credit sold.

Verra benefits,
because Verra receives money

for each credit
that has been issued,

plus you had these relationships
with project developers

that had grown
for the last decade or so.

So if this system is working
for them, then don't touch it.

Why would you change the rules
if everyone's happy?

Verra gets paid by the developer

and then Verra also gets paid per
credit generated, is that right?

Erm, that's right. Verra receives...
has registration fees,

and then Verra also earns
a small fee

from every credit that is issued.

But there does seem to be
some conflict of interest.

You know, lots of people
might think that

it's in the interest of Verra,
in fact, to overestimate

the number of credits that can be
produced from a certain project.

There's no incentive for us
to generate additional revenue

or to make any profits,
because that doesn't happen.

We're nonprofit, and the money
just goes back into managing

the programmes to make sure
they're being run

in the most efficient
and effective way.

Verra IS a nonprofit organisation,
but it generates a lot of money.

It holds reserves of $52 million,

and in 2022, its CEO got salary
and benefits worth $420,000.

It says it's updated
the way it calculates

the number of credits
a project can sell.

While making this documentary,
we've taken six flights

and driven around 2,000 miles.

Like other major broadcasters,
the BBC has bought carbon credits

to offset the pollution
caused by productions like this.

A Freedom of Information request
revealed the corporation

bought £55,000 worth
of carbon credits in 2022.

Almost half were bought here.

Cambodia is full of
untouched rainforests...

..perfect for absorbing
carbon pollution...

..but it also has one of the highest
rates of deforestation in the world.

The Keo Seima project is run
by a developer

called the Wildlife
Conservation Society.

It's generated 21 million
carbon credits.

That should mean it's offset 21
million tonnes of carbon pollution.

Thales West, who's been studying
offsetting projects

around the world, doesn't think
the numbers add up.

What we've found

for the Keo Seima project

is that the project itself
IS reducing deforestation,

it's simply not reducing
as much deforestation

as claimed by
the project developers.

What kind of...discrepancy
are we talking about here?

Looking at our results,

I would say that more than
half of the credits

from that project
are not real offsets.

There are also concerns about what's
happening just outside the project.

This is a satellite image
of an area of rainforest

right next to the project.

It was taken in 2011,
a year after the project started.

This is what's left of
that same piece of forest today.

It shows that since
the project started,

loggers have moved into the
neighbouring area,

where the forest
is far less protected.

COCK CROWS

DOG BARKS

HAMMERING

Bol Kroeunh and Kong Kronh
are part of a community

who live next to the project.

For generations, they've protected
this part of the forest themselves -

but recently
it's become a losing battle.

Because of the increased logging,
their way of life is under threat.

The Wildlife Conservation Society
says third-party audits

affirm the validity
of its carbon credits,

the rate of project forest loss

is lower than other
protected areas in Cambodia,

and any loss
outside the project area

is fully tracked and accounted for.

It says it's channelled nearly
$2 million to local communities

and indigenous peoples since 2019.

The BBC says it has in the past
purchased carbon offsets

to meet industry-wide
mandatory requirements.

It says its net zero strategy

is now focused on
deep decarbonisation

rather than relying on offsetting.

Boeing and Deliveroo
have bought credits

in another project in Cambodia.

Southern Cardamom is one of
the country's biggest projects.

The project developers,
Wildlife Alliance,

say almost 500,000 hectares
of rainforest are being protected.

The project started in 2015

and has been developed
in partnership

with the Cambodian government.

What I'm doing here is to try to get
all the finance from carbon credit,

as much as possible,
to help to develop the communities,

to make sure that their
living condition is improved.

That can teach them
to become entrepreneurs...

..and get them
to help me to develop,

to expand the coverage area to
make more money from carbon credit.

The developers say they have
strong community backing...

..but last year,
the verification agency Verra

suspended the sale of new credits

after it began an investigation
into claims of forced evictions.

Wildlife Alliance says any removals
were carried out lawfully.

QUIET CONVERSATION

We've also been hearing
about other concerns.

A local journalist tells us
to head to an area

in the north-west of the project
where heavy machinery has been seen.

Our local producer speaks to
some of the construction workers.

Can you ask them what they're doing?

BANGING AND HAMMERING

A major road is being built

that'll cut through
part of the protected forest.

As part of a programme
of Chinese investment,

not only is a road being built,
but a hydroelectric dam is, too.

TRUCK HORN BLARES

The project says this is
just the kind of threat

it was intended to protect against.

Wildlife Alliance says it recognises

the Cambodian government
faces a difficult trade-off

between economic development

and protecting the environment.

We visited South Cardamom. Mm-hm.

And we found that there was a
significant amount of deforestation

caused by the new road

and one dam that is actually within
the boundaries of the project.

Mm-hm. How is this consistent
with your goals?

Cambodia's only 25 years old.
We only have peace for 25 years,

and we need access roads,
we need energy securities.

When a dam is built within the
project and causes deforestation,

what happens to those credits?

The amount that they purchase
is not affected at all,

and with the reforestation
that we are putting out,

one million trees per year planting,

I'm sure that that will be
compensating the impact.

But according to climate experts,

planting trees can never make up for
the loss of established rainforest.

Rainforests today are like
the lungs of the Earth.

They are our life support
in this climate crisis.

It's critically important that
we keep existing rich ecosystems,

like rainforests, intact,

because they store far more carbon
than we ever could

if we just started
planting trees everywhere.

The credits sold in Southern
Cardamom are certified by Verra.

This is government-sanctioned
logging,

taking place within the project.

How is that consistent with the
goals of avoiding deforestation?

Hmm... I'm not aware
of that particular infraction

that you highlight.

If that indeed is happening,

we would welcome hearing about it,

and then we would
absolutely address that.

What, then, is the value of
those credits

that have been sold to companies?

The individual trees could be lost,

but overall, the project
has generated more climate benefits

to make up for that, and some.

So there's not an inherent problem
that you lose forests.

It's just how you account for it
needs to be robust.

Sorry, Joel, go ahead. What?

Verra's PR director interrupts.

He's been monitoring
the interview remotely

and tells his colleague
to stop talking about the project

because of the investigation
into alleged forced evictions

that's already under way.

OK. Erm, yeah, and just to say,
Joel's pointing out that, you know,

the Cardamom,
because it's Section 6,

it's an ongoing investigation,
so we really shouldn't comment

about that specific project
right now.

The project didn't feature
in reports

criticising the value
of forest carbon credits.

Wildlife Alliance says
the project protects a vast area

of important but threatened
rainforest,

it advances the land rights
of people in 29 villages

and has financed schools,
medical centres, safe water wells

and university scholarships.

It says it couldn't alert Verra
to the construction work

because the project
had already been suspended

and that deforestation can reduce

the number of credits
but not their value.

Deliveroo says it hasn't used
carbon offsetting since 2021

and it's not part of its strategy
to reach its net zero target.

Boeing says it believes
nature and tech-based solutions

are required to decarbonise and
it relies on assurances from Verra.

British Airways, which has bought
other avoided deforestation credits,

says it recognises
the carbon offset market

is not a complete solution, but that
it has an interim role for aviation

as the industry develops
and scales up new technology.

Back in the UK, we found
an environmental consultancy

featuring on its website the two
Cambodian projects we visited.

Ecologi sells credits and says it's
offered advice to 20,000 clients.

We're going to secretly film
a meeting with them.

We've told them we're about to make
a travel series

and that means lots of carbon
pollution. We say our US backers

want us to be carbon neutral
but they've got a tight budget.

We're told the first step

is to reduce our day-to-day
carbon emissions

but we don't have to
reduce them very much.

Then it's onto the carbon credits.
She says there are two types -

carbon avoidance credits,
like the sort we've been looking at,

or what she calls
upgraded carbon removal credits,

which are more expensive.

Another organisation can then
certify us carbon neutral.

We asked Kaya Axelsson from Oxford
University to review the footage.

She worked with the UN to set up new
guidelines for carbon offsetting.

She says it's not good practice
to tell companies

they only need to reduce
their emissions by a small amount.

One thing that is a problem
with what she said - unfortunately,

it's very common practice -

is you only have to reduce
even just one tonne,

and then if you buy credits
for the rest

you can have a carbon
neutrality badge.

That is a really poor message
to be sending

when we really need
to be reducing our emissions,

our own emissions, rapidly.

And, for her, small reductions
in carbon emissions

should never be enough for a company
to be declared carbon neutral.

To tack on the carbon neutrality
badge that you get after doing that,

which is really misleading
to the public,

that there has in fact been a
neutral impact on the climate,

that is even more misleading.

During the meeting,
Ecologi advises us long-term

to make big reductions
to our carbon footprint.

Then she brings up
the Guardian article

that criticised many avoided
deforestation projects.

But, at the time of filming,

Ecologi's website featured
eight projects

mentioned in the research
behind the Guardian report.

Ecologi says it's built on trust
and transparency

and, together with its partners,

uses state-of-the-art technology
to assess project quality.

It says not all the projects
on its website are available to fund

and it's now made this clearer.

It says it hasn't funded
the Southern Cardamom project

since the end of 2022 and says
Keo Seima remains good quality

but it has no plans to buy
more credits from there.

There are signs regulation
is catching up

with the use of carbon credits.

From 2026,
the EU will ban businesses

from using them
to make carbon neutral claims...

..and some companies have told us,

while they still plan
to reach net zero,

they're moving away
from carbon credits altogether.

One of my biggest fears in
this discussion about the problems

in the carbon market is
that people will just get cynical

and turn away and stop trying to
make and meet net zero targets.

It is critical
that we actually do that work.

We can't afford companies to be
backing off of their targets.

The stakes couldn't be higher.

Many companies have locked
themselves into climate commitments.

And if they can't rely on the carbon
market to help them get there,

then the pressure is on
to cut their emissions fast.