my LinkedIn feed has been full this week of comments about the latest Greenpeace et al letter condemning carbon offsetting. I'm not sure why this is news - it's just stating what we already know is an ideological position. It's like Nigel Farage saying 'Brexit is great'. Lots of people agree, lots of people don't, it's certainly not surprising. So instead of highlighting that letter, I'd prefer to focus on the letter published by the hugely credible, science based NGOs of The Nature Conservancy Conservation International Environmental Defense Fund Wildlife Conservation Society Fauna & Flora American Forest Foundation which argues for pretty much the exact opposite within certain well defined guardrails. It's a shame this isn't getting so much attention. I'd urge any decision makers or thought leaders who aren't already idealogically for or against offsetting to read this and conclude 'yeah this position seems really unreasonable'. It strikes me as being a very good voice for common sense and compromise - something which the environmental/nature movement certainly needs at the moment. https://lnkd.in/dVHwfKKf
Ed Hewitt you can add the letter from 10 African countries to SBTI 😉
Richard Rice
2w
How about a carbon tax??? The environmental movement acts like that’s not even an option. A carbon tax is much simpler, quicker, more comprehensive, cost-effective and equitable than anything I ever see talked about on this site. And with offsetting rebates most people would be better off with the “tax” than without it. Here’s something we ALL should support. https://energyinnovationact.org/. I can’t believe this isn’t part of the discussion.
Steve Crooks
3w
Thanks for highlighting the opinion of those who actually work on nature-based approaches with communities and governments. Their letter is thoughtful, clear and based on first-hand experience. By and large, we are moving along the right path of constant improvements coupled with increasing engagements by companies working to reduce their emissions. We should continue to work to improve the system and ever focus on making progress.
Patrik Lund
2w
The reason I oppose carbon offsetting is because I oppose the excessive focus on carbon. There is plenty of evidence highlighting how climate change is caused by a wide range of environmental impacts. For example, I consider the quality of forests* and biodiversity risks combined with ocean pollution to be as critical (if not more important) than carbon emissions. There is no sense in continuing to ask people who are focused on carbon if they consider carbon to be the most critical issue. This is the classic error of asking a barber if you need a haircut. *Note: I do not consider carbon capture to be the most critical issue for forests – but a carbon focus combined with carbon offsetting all too easily makes people 'see' trees as devices for carbon capture thereby ignoring the much more important aspects of trees and forests. #haircuts
Jenny Morgan
3w
I couldn't agree with this sentiment more! Cancel culture has spread into climate and we must recognize that, so that we can rise above it. Increased polarization will increase climate challenges. Especially for those that are essentially on the same side! We need to come together so that we can work together and then influence those that aren't yet on the "climate team." We can't do that apart. Thanks for sharing this, Ed! Keep up the good work! And that's coming from someone that works in non-CO2 avoidance! Dun dun dun! 😉
Ken Browning
3w
Carbon offsetting was in the 70 s 80 s and 90s ( oh and I guess that I need to put the two digits 19 before those three decades.!) an innovative and effective way for forward thinking and wait! was there such a thing as a corporation with a “ social contract “ wow this post is getting quaintly outdated in a hurry! This is strangely light years as technology and society keeps vaulting and hurtling over previously unthought of benchmarks. What would Malthus say about a civilization which keeps advancing technologies, applying them appropriately and more often inappropriately, lurching forwards and back and all around while producing too much of many things and not enough of most others.
Andrew Heald
3w
Completely agree - there's a time and a place for activism, and also a time and a place for working together and driving forward with broad consensus.
Sequestering excess atmospheric carbon through vegetation is always going to be a good thing. Is time at the heart of the “offset” debate? Significant carbon pollution can be achieved in a matter of weeks/months. Nature-based carbon sequestration at a useful level will take decades. Doesn’t mean we don’t get on with planting - but perhaps with eyes wide open. Jelenko Dragisic, Paul Koch
As a starting point for a compromise to the use of offsets those guard rails point in the right direction but to be honest these guardrails are not new and there is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that they are effective and everyone in the market abides by them
🇺🇦 Associate Professor (tenured) in Sustainable Finance and ESG at Kyushu University
3wEd Hewitt All these “respectable” NGOs have direct financial interests in (nature-based) carbon offsets, pushing VCMs without providing any robust independently verifiable scientific evidence/data other than anecdotal statements like “the Global South needs them” or “we have no alternatives”, ignoring basic climate and ecosystems science. There are better ways to fight climate change and create new local opportunities by expanding renewable energy infrastructure. Carbon offsetting at this stage is just the facilitation of corporate greenwashing and not aligned with neither climate science nor environmental science.