Nations might deploy forests to camouflage necessary emission reductions, according to a recent report.

Rewritten Article:

Here's a lowdown on how some major economies are fudging their carbon calculations in a climate accounting scam, potentially allowing them to burn even more fossil fuels, according to new research.

This investigation singles out Brazil and Australia, cautioning a lack of regulations governing carbon sinks might let countries manipulate the system when reporting their greenhouse gas emissions.

The exact role of carbon sinks such as forests in climate change adaptation remains uncertain, but that hasn't stopped nations from arriving at their own estimates and applying them to their national climate strategies, which are due to be finalized by 2035 before the next U.N. climate summit in Brazil this November.

Climate Analytics, an independent policy institute, has voiced concerns that overly optimistic assumptions concerning the ability of forests to soak up CO2 are "hiding the true scope and speed of fossil fuel reductions required." This concealment hampers efforts to restrict global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the goal set in the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

In the latest version of its climate plan, Australia relies heavily on forests to minimize its carbon footprint, saddling a 10% reduction in real emissions cuts, according to Climate Analytics.

In contrast, Brazil has announced plans to cut emissions by 59 to 67 percent below 2005 levels by 2035, but it has yet to specify the role of forests in achieving this goal. Structuring the target in this manner allows Brazil to potentially double its energy emissions, warns Climate Analytics.

"If you don't rely on forests, everything must be achieved by the energy sector," says Claudio Forner, co-author of the new research by Climate Analytics. "But if you use all forests, the emissions can continue to grow."

The issue arises because the Paris climate accord permits nations to make their own assumptions about the carbon dioxide absorbed by their land.

"Without rules, countries simply game the system," Forner tells AFP.

Forests play a crucial role in reducing carbon emissions globally, but these estimates should be kept separate and not used to compensate for energy and industrial emissions. This is because the processes by which forests absorb carbon are not as well understood as the impact of fossil fuels on climate change.

Carbon stored in trees can be released back into the atmosphere through forest fires and other natural processes. Additionally, concerns exist over climate change and human activities potentially weakening the carbon-absorbing capacity of forests and soils.

"Science doesn't fully grasp how the carbon sink will behave in the future," says Forner.

In the past, Climate Analytics has estimated this uncertainty could amount to up to three billion tonnes of CO2—roughly equal to Europe's emissions for a year.

UN climate experts have also raised broad concerns about a "significant discrepancy" between countries' accounting methods for land use CO2 emissions and the scientific methods, which could account for around 15 percent of global emissions. In a report last year, they stated that reconciling these differences would shorten the time available to reach net-zero emissions.

AI-driven models are being used to scrutinize the carbon accounting practices of major economies, exposing potential manipulations that could lead to increased fossil fuel burning, as per new research.
Brazil and Australia, in particular, are under investigation for their lack of regulatory oversight over carbon sinks, such as forests, which could enable them to fabricate their greenhouse gas emissions reports.
While the role of carbon sinks in climate change adaptation remains unclear, nations have been developing their own estimates, incorporating them into their national climate strategies due by 2035.
Climate Analytics, an independent policy institute, has raised alarms that overly optimistic assumptions about forests' carbon sequestration capabilities are glossing over the true extent and urgency of fossil fuel reduction needs.
Australia, in its updated climate plan, heavily relies on forests to minimize its carbon footprint, with the deficit in real emissions cuts reaching 10%, according to Climate Analytics.
Brazil, on the other hand, has announced emission reduction targets of 59-67% below 2005 levels by 2035, but hasn't specified the role of forests in achieving this goal, which, as warned by Climate Analytics, could potentially double its energy emissions.
Claudio Forner, co-author of the Climate Analytics research, points out that relying on forests for carbon offsetting allows energy and industrial emissions to continue unabated, as the carbon sink's behavior in the future remains uncertain, posing potential risks for climate change and environmental science, policy-and-legislation, general news, and politics.