Published April 5, 2008
by iris_author
Up until a decade ago, the concepts of carbon offsetting and carbon trading were deeply controversial. They were largely seen within the environmental community as a dangerous free market hijacking of the greenhouse gas problem that would allow rich countries and polluters to escape from the consequences of their actions while buying credits of dubious worth from less industrialized and thus less polluting regions of the world.
Unfortunately, this criticism has grown silent as Al Gore, who disappointed environmentalists in his eight years as Vice-President, has successfully rehabilitated his image in recent years. There is much to commend with his resurrection, as he has taken principled stands against the Iraq War, in defense of the US Constitution and science-based reasoning, and of course, his tireless advocacy on climate change. He has become the Oscar and Nobel-prize winning hero he never could during his tragic run for the presidency in 2000. However, one thing has not changed -- he remains a steadfast advocate of the emissions trading or "cap and trade" system, which he played a large role in introducing to Kyoto before the US abandoned the treaty in 1997.
Recently, the UK-based Independent, one outstanding newspaper that has covered climate change extensively, reiterated these critiques as voiced by mainline environmental and indigenous rights groups. Here's a sample of what they said:
"Taking a dodgy accounting proposition, which is that you can somehow identify the amount of carbon that any given new bit of forest picks up out of the atmosphere and sequesters, and make that correspond somehow to emissions elsewhere," is how Greenpeace sees carbon offsetting, according to its senior climate adviser Charlie Kronick. "It can't be done. The methodology is poor, and the logic isn't very good either. Once the carbon you've put in from fossil fuels is up there, nothing is going to make it go away."
Friends of the Earth's Marie Reynolds points out that not only is offsetting no substitute for real emissions cuts, but there is no guarantee, when you plant a tree, what the future of that tree will be. Robin Oakley, Greenpeace's climate and energy campaigner, agrees: "The issue with offsetting is that, fundamentally, it doesn't undo the damage done by carbon pollution. The vast number of players in the offsetting market are not reducing emissions in any accountable or measurable way."
In some cases, local people, far from benefiting, suffer when huge new plantations spring up. Survival International campaigner David Hill says: "Numerous reports show how indigenous peoples have suffered as a result of carbon projects: invasion of their land, evictions, the destruction of villages and crops, reduced access to or destruction of traditional resources, and violent conflict."
For a more detailed look at the history and record of the carbon trading concept, it would be worthwhile to check out the book, Carbon Trading: A Critical Conversation on Climate Change, Privatisation and Power, which through numerous case studies and economic analysis finds the entire regime to be both "ineffective and unjust." Sobering reading indeed.
Posted in: Blogs
Carbon Trade Watch is a group that monitors various carbon offsets projects around the world. Interestingly, in response to the murky nature of some of these projects, “Gold Standard” or “premium quality” credits have been introduced for those wanting more accountable and socially responsible outcomes for their investment.
Yes, the indigenous peoples of South America and the Philippeans are being impacted as their traditional lands are being cleared for palm oil and soybean plantations – all to fuel the West’s demand for alternative fuels. Not the best solution – or at least not being executed in a very sustainable manner.