A recent study published in Nature Communications has highlighted the significant role of albedo changes in determining the climate benefits of carbon projects. The researchers—a team of six production and operations management PhDs—wanted to know. They dove into 172 carbon projects, with The Nature Conservancy’s lead forest restoration scientist, Susan Cook-Patton, making a significant contribution. The study found that 10% of these initiatives have the unintended consequence of actually warming the climate. This is what occurs when we incorporate changes in albedo.
Albedo is the scientific term used to describe how much light that strikes a surface is reflected without being absorbed. The researchers determined that the median albedo deduction for all studied projects was 18%. That’s to say, once we accounted for albedo effects, the projects turned out to have wasted most of their expected climate benefits. Alarmingly, one in four projects had albedo deductions of 50% or more. Or worse, 12% of them had their whole carbon benefit completely erased due to these changes.
Alongside these troubling discoveries, came wonderful news. The most surprising finding of the research was that only 9% of the projects actually saved albedo benefits. This indicates that in addition to lowering carbon emissions, they increased the solar reflectivity of their built environment. This combined advantage could make them a more impactful tool in the fight against climate change.
This line of research is very important. Perhaps most importantly, it emphasizes the urgently-needed need to better account for cooling albedo effects in carbon market protocols. According to Cook-Patton, there’s a huge opportunity to use these insights to rethink climate financing strategies.
“When they are designed with integrity and informed by the best available science, carbon market projects are a powerful and necessary tool for mitigating climate change.” – Susan Cook-Patton
The projects analyzed are estimated to provide nearly 800 million tons of carbon dioxide emission reduction over the next century. As the new study demonstrates, the right evaluations need to incorporate albedo effects to avoid over-inflating these benefits.
Lynn M. Riley, one of the researchers involved, noted that improved accounting methods could lead to better funding for impactful projects. She stated:
“Albedo and other non-carbon climate benefits like evapotranspiration and snow cover duration could be credited in the carbon market once additional science and accounting have been developed to do so credibly.” – Lynn M. Riley
The findings add to the growing body of knowledge aimed at refining the voluntary carbon market, ensuring it meets rigorous standards. As Riley mentioned, the study has found that most forest restoration projects have negligible albedo deductions.
“I was encouraged to find that a majority of forest restoration projects have small albedo deductions, indicating that albedo changes are likely negating only a small fraction of the carbon-related climate-cooling benefits.” – Lynn M. Riley
In general, this study highlights the challenges in determining the effectiveness of carbon projects. It talks about the gaps and unexplored opportunities to develop better climate adaptation strategies informed by science and enhanced project design and implementation.