I don't think the effectiveness of nature-based solutions and carbon offsetting is at the heart of the problem. Rather, what's at stake is the epistemic violence that objectifies, commercializes, and instrumentalizes nature while demarcating forest conservation from Indigenous communities and their cultural practices. This leads to human rights concerns, evictions, land grabs, and neocolonialism. Thank you, Chris, for recognizing that and adding your patch.
Regarding the "contribution model" they propose, I see the efforts to delink nature conservation from corporate benefits. However, relying on corporate spontaneity and self-taxation of carbon emissions to solve the problem is like fixing the problem with what causes it. Chris, I'm curious about your take on this, but I can hardly believe that neoliberal, profit-driven market entities will be willing to take on those efforts.
I wrote this post in the hope that it would generate exactly this sort of discussion. So thanks for your comment!
I agree, I can't really see Shell or ExxonMobil voluntarily handing over US$100 per ton of CO₂ emissions for which they are responsible. Governments could pass "polluter pays" regulation. But I can't see Saudi Arabia, the US, or the United Arab Emirates doing so any time soon. Or Norway, for that matter.
And then there's the issue about they way big finance is taking over nature conservation. The figure of a US$700 billion biodiversity funding gap was dreamed up by US conservation corporations and is not based on scientific analysis. (https://reddmonitor.substack.com/p/the-us700-billion-biodiversity-funding)
I agree. I just wrote a lengthy comment and lost it! Mostly about the unlikelihood of corporations (other than B Corps) choosing to do this without a massive upside for them. A major part of the reason the carbon markets were created was to provide an (albeit faulty) mechanism to ensure corporate participation. With hindsight all of the problems are glaringly obvious. The same is true for biodiversity certificates. One of the primary reasons cited for creating a nature repair market in Australia was because corporates wouldn’t invest in nature repair without the security of certification by a reputable source (in this case, the AU govt). Functionally this means the govt is both creating and underwriting a ‘market’ to enable the flow of corporate money towards nature. Without such a structure, why should or would corporations assign $$$ to nature? They are profit focused not nature focused and too myopic to understand that the restoration of nature IS the foundation of economy going forward. I wish it was different but it’s not.
We need a fundamental shift in paradigm to really make any difference. Or the collapse of economy as we know it.
Good insight 😃. Can i translate part of this article into Spanish with links to you and a description of your newsletter?
Yes, of course. If you could leave a link here when you've finished the translation that would be great.
Thanks, Chris.
I don't think the effectiveness of nature-based solutions and carbon offsetting is at the heart of the problem. Rather, what's at stake is the epistemic violence that objectifies, commercializes, and instrumentalizes nature while demarcating forest conservation from Indigenous communities and their cultural practices. This leads to human rights concerns, evictions, land grabs, and neocolonialism. Thank you, Chris, for recognizing that and adding your patch.
Regarding the "contribution model" they propose, I see the efforts to delink nature conservation from corporate benefits. However, relying on corporate spontaneity and self-taxation of carbon emissions to solve the problem is like fixing the problem with what causes it. Chris, I'm curious about your take on this, but I can hardly believe that neoliberal, profit-driven market entities will be willing to take on those efforts.
I wrote this post in the hope that it would generate exactly this sort of discussion. So thanks for your comment!
I agree, I can't really see Shell or ExxonMobil voluntarily handing over US$100 per ton of CO₂ emissions for which they are responsible. Governments could pass "polluter pays" regulation. But I can't see Saudi Arabia, the US, or the United Arab Emirates doing so any time soon. Or Norway, for that matter.
And then there's the issue about they way big finance is taking over nature conservation. The figure of a US$700 billion biodiversity funding gap was dreamed up by US conservation corporations and is not based on scientific analysis. (https://reddmonitor.substack.com/p/the-us700-billion-biodiversity-funding)
I agree. I just wrote a lengthy comment and lost it! Mostly about the unlikelihood of corporations (other than B Corps) choosing to do this without a massive upside for them. A major part of the reason the carbon markets were created was to provide an (albeit faulty) mechanism to ensure corporate participation. With hindsight all of the problems are glaringly obvious. The same is true for biodiversity certificates. One of the primary reasons cited for creating a nature repair market in Australia was because corporates wouldn’t invest in nature repair without the security of certification by a reputable source (in this case, the AU govt). Functionally this means the govt is both creating and underwriting a ‘market’ to enable the flow of corporate money towards nature. Without such a structure, why should or would corporations assign $$$ to nature? They are profit focused not nature focused and too myopic to understand that the restoration of nature IS the foundation of economy going forward. I wish it was different but it’s not.
We need a fundamental shift in paradigm to really make any difference. Or the collapse of economy as we know it.