I get a little triggered whenever I see environmental NGOs in the global north opposing carbon credits. After all, without carbon credits, we have no plan for forests, no plan for carbon removal, and we offer the global south what I call the Green Sh!tty deal, and it goes like this: The unstated expectation is that countries like Ecuador, where I live, should throttle their emissions while continuing to meet their populations' outstanding needs and aspirations. At the same time, they must protect their vast forests and mangroves, which deliver ecosystem services/benefits to the entire planet. They must do so for free, absorbing the costs of the global north's pollution-driven development. To boot, the country probably has an agreement with the IMF to enforce fiscal austerity, and it's likely dealing with some serious drug-fueled security issues along with illegal mining, which is driving deforestation and polluting waterways. Oh yeah, the global north demands minerals for its wind and solar projects and lithium for its batteries, but unless your government is anti-mining, frankly, your government is the enemy of the global environmental movement. If the green sh!tty deal makes you uncomfortable, it should. Solving climate change while enabling development is complex and includes some not-great trade-offs. Some might say the solution is for governments in the north to compensate governments in the south, but countries in the south know better than to pin their hopes on the arrival of that check. In Latin America, most school-aged children read Garcia Marquez's novella "El Coronel No Tiene Quien Quien Le Escriba", about an old man waiting to receive his military pension after heroically serving in a war. Spoiler alert: it never comes. Carbon credits represent an imperfect but evolving proposal for complementary climate action. When used correctly, high-quality carbon credits do not replace decarbonization efforts but instead are a means to take responsibility for emissions that are present today but won't be mitigated until tomorrow. That's why indigenous groups like the Peoples Forests Partnership (PFP) are urging SBTi to consider how to use credits to maximize decarbonization and regeneration. Too many environmental activists don't want to wrestle with the complexity of decarbonization or the unintended consequences of their policy stances. Instead, they prefer to hold signs, yell slogans, and expect others to figure out the details. They claim to speak for indigenous peoples, but they won't listen to them. So here's my suggestion: if you're an environmentalist publicly opposing climate action, consider whether you've got all the facts and are approaching the exercise with an open mind. Maybe try talking to someone who disagrees with you. If you're unswayed, propose an alternative. We must move on from environmentalism as only opposition toward environmentalism as proposition.
I challenge the blinkered view that carbon credits are the only pathway to “transitioning away from fossil fuels in a just, orderly and equitable manner”. A narrow framing of climate as being about carbon shows us a pollution problem that calls for pollution control solutions: make laws to make the markets clean up their mess. A broader framing, after COP28, shows us a choice of energy supply technologies that calls for a new choice of new energy supply technologies solution. This solution sounds a clarion call for a new planetary initiative to rapidly redesign and reconstruct our global energy supply ecosystem to be remade as purpose-rebuilt for energy sufficiency complete with habitat longevity and social equity at planetary scale in the 21st Century and beyond… Such a planetary scale enterprise will need financing at a planetary scale. Pensions & Endowments set free from Market Capture to negotiate with enterprise directly can supply that financing.
Quite questionable (if not blatantly untrue) to suggest carbon credits are our only ”plan“ and viable way to protect forests and/or remove carbon from the atmosphere. Are you actually saying Rubicon Carbon is a company focussed primarily on protecting or healing the global south - not in making the most profit you could from the voluntary carbon market (and is that what your CEO was doing at Bank of America & Goldman Sachs before as well 😑) Matthew?
Which indigenous groups are in favor of carbon credits, and which are opposed, and what are their reasons? Indigenous Environmental Network is opposed - have you spoken with representatives to ask why, or read their documents? Such as: https://www.ienearth.org/carbon-pricing/
Love that last line and may I suggest that a pre-requisite for all carbon credits is due diligence performed by indigenous leaders and NGOs as part of the accreditation? That’s the game changer.
Marco Albani
2w
I agree with the post but whatever AI you used to make the picture is creating some seriously freakish faces
Sean Mohen
2w
I find the righteous indignation in this post troubling. As someone who supports carbon credits/markets I say that skepticism from environmentalists is not only pragmatic, but warranted given the history of offset programs and associated bedfellows.
This is an amazing and very much needed dose of perspective. Thank you for the thoughtful and honest commentary!
A system that allows rich world companies to carry on polluting just because they buy 'offsets' that aren't even permanent is no solution. It just reinforces the narrative that 'the only solution is a market solution' but actually the best (cheapest, locally empowering, etc) solution in this case is regulation of habitat destruction and emissions. I completely agree that rich world governments haven't come through in terms of funding global majority country transitions and habitat protections but offering a non-solution instead is not credible.
equitable economics, sustainability, global system change for people and planet
2wMy question is - how big share of carbon credit market revenues and profits truly go to global south governments, public entities (which normally holds the nature protection function in most countries) or communities or private companies locally owned in global south to then use the money to finance climate action? Large areas of forests across Africa are now bought by UAE and other richer countries and international companies to turn these into carbon credits trading machines. I agree that in principle carbon credits can work and do good, but it comes with strict conditions.