Read on Twitter
Having scanned the report for a scale up of voluntary offsets, it feels like a very dangerous document
The scope for greenwash is very high, continuing business as usual for the convenience of existing corporate interests https://www.climatechangenews.com/2020/11/10/mark-carney-oversees-blueprint-scaling-carbon-market-offset-demand-soars/
The scope for greenwash is very high, continuing business as usual for the convenience of existing corporate interests https://www.climatechangenews.com/2020/11/10/mark-carney-oversees-blueprint-scaling-carbon-market-offset-demand-soars/
It is suspicious when a task force of this kind has little or nothing in the way of civil society challenge is an area as controversial as offsetting
and offsetting is beset with problems from ineffectiveness to neocolonialism to commodification of nature (and we're in a nature emergency too, remember) https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/the-biggest-problem-with-carbon-offsetting-is-that-it-doesnt-really-work/
Usual response to such challenge is to invoke 'certification'
But I'm unaware of any scheme that has been really effective certifying commodities, from palm oil to timber to soya. And point of this initiative seems to be to scale up offsets, to become like commodities
But I'm unaware of any scheme that has been really effective certifying commodities, from palm oil to timber to soya. And point of this initiative seems to be to scale up offsets, to become like commodities
I'm sure the people involved mean well, but there are deep and profound problems with the offsetting agenda, esp on a voluntary basis, and I can't see they're being tackled
