"Despite repeated pledges of financial support from high-polluting nations, they haven’t delivered what they promised. And even if they did, it wouldn’t be nearly enough to support the urgent action that’s needed. That makes carbon markets a critical source of financing." Great article by Fred Krupp of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). There is a right and a wrong side of the ideological debate around Carbon Markets. Yes, make no mistake - the debate is not scientific. It confronts people who believe in the private sector and markets as an instrument for positive impact, and people who believe in state-owned resources, and have a negative view of markets. It is an old debate - one where collectivists always (wrongly) assume they have the moral upper hand. I am on the pro-makets side, although I do not believe in 100% free markets - there is a role for states and multilateral organisations. Their key role is establishing fair playing-fields, regulations and acting as referees. But the driving force, if we are to have any hope of achieving scale in our fight against climate change, biodiversity loss and rural poverty, will always depend on private sector actors.
What is most striking is how the system gets paralyzed by inaction from all sides. Governments failing to act on jurisdictional approaches. Private sector action being hammered for its imperfections. All starting from places of ideology, from both sides, to be fair - corporates and investors too often pushing back on government action and regulated models VS seeing the benefits of it to create the level playing field you describe, activists and proponents of government action pushing back on voluntary efforts. Where is the dialogue that leads to pragmatic compromises in all this? The recognition that in the face of highly complex dynamics, ideological purity can only lead to lose-lose scenarios? Great to see credible leaders take a stance and stick their necks out. The paralysis, inaction, and slow progress have already had unfortunate consequences and impacts. Scrutiny is needed, but all we are getting right now is setbacks. At a time when emissions are at an all-time high and will only go up - as shown by Microsoft’s admission that AI is a carbon guzzler that is setting them back in their net-zero targets.
[1/2 ] Josep Oriol, thank you for sharing your cautious and balanced carbon market supporting views and the article by Fred Krupp, the President of the Environmental Defense Fund . Let me share a few thoughts on an aspect that appears to be overlooked by many (voluntary ) carbon market advocates, such as Mr Krupp, openly advocating the Energy Transition Accelerator, in his article: 1, Rules and level-playing field: 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟-𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫 𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬. One can even argue that it is futile/ hopeless. I put down some thoughts in two recent pieces ' What is common between Tattoos, the Highway Code, Whales and the Voluntary Carbon Market' ( https://bit.ly/4dritj6) in an attempt to argue for Regulations by Regulators ( as opposed to what Mr Krupp advocates: "markets are establishing improved guidance for projects and programs that benefit people and the climate") . Imagine playing football with each team/player having their own 'improved guidance' instead of FIFA rules. A case when the better is simply not good enough, isn't ? 2. Even if we have stringent and enforced rules ( after 30 years of the VCM we still don't have them!) we still need DEMAND.