By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
The research into Verra, the world’s leading carbon standard for the rapidly growing $2bn (£1.6bn) voluntary offsets market, has found that, based on analysis of a significant percentage of the projects, more than 90% of their rainforest offset credits — among the most commonly used by companies — are likely to be “phantom credits” and do not represent genuine carbon reductions.
See also carbon credit trading etc...etc.... Smoke and mirrors, welcome to Oz.
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
This is awful – especially for other more genuine offsetting projects. But a wake up call so that these are checked too.
Sadly, you can see how this happens when people and profits are involved. From a pure economic perspective there’s an incentive for everyone involved – even the companies paying – to wildly exaggerate the activity and any impact. The only disincentive is if people have integrity and a genuine commitment but the economic imperative would steamroll over or at least sideline those people.
One thing that did stand out was that the market for these voluntary carbon-offsetting projects is only 2 billion globally. I was surprised it’s that low so we need to put it in perspective that this is still a drop in the ocean re: the real fight against climate change. And also perhaps that this scandal shouldn’t be seen as a reflection of all sustainability work – even though it’s likely we need to look more at what’s happening and less at what people are saying. Any greenwashing needs to be seen as beyond the pale, and there is still too much tolerance and slipping of standards here.
Pronouns: He/Him
0
Greenwashing. Who cares it's the markets innit. on 13:05 - Jan 19 with 345 views
Greenwashing. Who cares it's the markets innit. on 11:11 - Jan 19 by Darth_Koont
This is awful – especially for other more genuine offsetting projects. But a wake up call so that these are checked too.
Sadly, you can see how this happens when people and profits are involved. From a pure economic perspective there’s an incentive for everyone involved – even the companies paying – to wildly exaggerate the activity and any impact. The only disincentive is if people have integrity and a genuine commitment but the economic imperative would steamroll over or at least sideline those people.
One thing that did stand out was that the market for these voluntary carbon-offsetting projects is only 2 billion globally. I was surprised it’s that low so we need to put it in perspective that this is still a drop in the ocean re: the real fight against climate change. And also perhaps that this scandal shouldn’t be seen as a reflection of all sustainability work – even though it’s likely we need to look more at what’s happening and less at what people are saying. Any greenwashing needs to be seen as beyond the pale, and there is still too much tolerance and slipping of standards here.
Just wait until class actions emerge in the US (they are coming), as investors argue that firm’s ESG efforts are affecting their ROI.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
