For a long time i have thought the approach to emissions is back to front. We are basically consumption based economies, so if we were going to address rising emissions, there should be a carbon tax on the embedded emissions in the goods we buy. I know that such a move would be unpopular, but the reality is that if would more realistically reflect the actual cost of a product.
The carbon credits system was never going to work. A lot of "carbon sinks" are pre existing, so there is no reduction in emissions by investing in them, and in any case the efficiency of carbon sinks can be impacted by events related to climate change. Obviously there are other issues which are mentioned here, but the system was always just an accounting measure, cooked up to appear "green" so the issue could be ignored.
I loved Liboiron’s book 🥰 I read it at the same time as Klee Benally’s In Defense of the Sacred, and it was extremely cool to see two v different indigenous writers engage in the same topics - in ways that sometimes intersected and sometimes were in opposition.
This was an excellent read and you've articulated the complexity of carbon credits beautifully here. I do worry about how easily they can be (and are being) marketed as a “win–win” when in reality the power imbalances make it incredibly difficult for communities to negotiate fair terms. There’s also something that feels deeply off to me about the broader financialisation of nature and ecosystems that carbon credits/markets are a part of. Thanks for sharing.
How much of re-forestation is biomass recovery that needs to reach a new faux-natural balance after centuries of deforestation/imbalance before any claims such tree growth offsets emissions can be realistically made? At most it could be claimed to be reducing land use sector emissions; it isn't reducing/offsetting fossil fuel emissions in any way.
As a 'get forest protection and reforestation this way or not at all' fork for Environmentalists means supporting it (we want the forests) looks less like real endorsement of carbon offsetting by the climate concerned than a forced compromise with clever, self serving politics from those that seek to save fossil fuels from climate policies. Not so much a win as less of a loss.
For a long time i have thought the approach to emissions is back to front. We are basically consumption based economies, so if we were going to address rising emissions, there should be a carbon tax on the embedded emissions in the goods we buy. I know that such a move would be unpopular, but the reality is that if would more realistically reflect the actual cost of a product.
The carbon credits system was never going to work. A lot of "carbon sinks" are pre existing, so there is no reduction in emissions by investing in them, and in any case the efficiency of carbon sinks can be impacted by events related to climate change. Obviously there are other issues which are mentioned here, but the system was always just an accounting measure, cooked up to appear "green" so the issue could be ignored.
I loved Liboiron’s book 🥰 I read it at the same time as Klee Benally’s In Defense of the Sacred, and it was extremely cool to see two v different indigenous writers engage in the same topics - in ways that sometimes intersected and sometimes were in opposition.
It’s a must-read, for sure. I haven’t read Benally’s though. One more for the pile
This was an excellent read and you've articulated the complexity of carbon credits beautifully here. I do worry about how easily they can be (and are being) marketed as a “win–win” when in reality the power imbalances make it incredibly difficult for communities to negotiate fair terms. There’s also something that feels deeply off to me about the broader financialisation of nature and ecosystems that carbon credits/markets are a part of. Thanks for sharing.
How much of re-forestation is biomass recovery that needs to reach a new faux-natural balance after centuries of deforestation/imbalance before any claims such tree growth offsets emissions can be realistically made? At most it could be claimed to be reducing land use sector emissions; it isn't reducing/offsetting fossil fuel emissions in any way.
As a 'get forest protection and reforestation this way or not at all' fork for Environmentalists means supporting it (we want the forests) looks less like real endorsement of carbon offsetting by the climate concerned than a forced compromise with clever, self serving politics from those that seek to save fossil fuels from climate policies. Not so much a win as less of a loss.