Back in 2011, the Munden Project put out a report titled, “REDD and Forest Carbon: Market-Based Critique and Recommendations”. The report concluded that “Forest carbon trading is unworkable as currently constructed”. One of the problems that the report highlighted was that a large amount of the money invested in REDD would be captured by intermediaries.
Thanks Dominic! "It's up to you, Chris" - no pressure then, eh? There are quite a few others as well... Like the 4.6 million people who watched John Oliver's show on carbon offsets:
It's a bit depressing that 12 years ago the warnings from people like Lou Munden, you, me and various other misfits, were ignored or dismissed by the NGO and donor community as a form of treachery.
The defence of REDD rested on the condition that this was a way (perhaps the only way) to channel money into marginalised forest communities. I may just about have swallowed the climate hypocrisy if this flow of funds had ever taken place. Instead, we have the worst of all worlds: capture by rent seekers, undermining of emission reduction action, and the reek of injustice.
Yes, as we knew from the very beginning, carbon markets are a gift to Wall Street types.
If carbon "offsets" actually fully funded forest preservation and biodiversity, in a properly transparent manner, then REDD-Monitor would be unemployed.
Yes, the remaining carbon, especially coal, must be left as is, properly sequestered in ground. Especially if coal use ceased immediately, there would be time to properly reduce other fossil fuel uses.
Bear in mind that the entirety of civilization has been built upon the use of fossil fuels and the promise of their enduring availability. If the use and availability should cease, the coyote will then see that civilization no longer has any support and will enter free-fall.
Rather than people seeking ever more energy from ever more sources, they (especially in global North) need to drastically cut back all energy use to world per-capita usage (or less). Such fundamental societal change requires what Dr. Maja Goepel calls "double-decoupling" and in a short-cut type of answer I suggest setting Limits to Progress.
Meanwhile, oxygen pricing is a better interim measure rather than this carbon trickery.
Thanks Dominic! "It's up to you, Chris" - no pressure then, eh? There are quite a few others as well... Like the 4.6 million people who watched John Oliver's show on carbon offsets:
https://reddmonitor.substack.com/p/john-oliver-we-cannot-offset-our
Anyway, I'm glad you like the Substack rendition of REDD-Monitor. It's still work in progress, but I'm enjoying it so far.
It's a bit depressing that 12 years ago the warnings from people like Lou Munden, you, me and various other misfits, were ignored or dismissed by the NGO and donor community as a form of treachery.
The defence of REDD rested on the condition that this was a way (perhaps the only way) to channel money into marginalised forest communities. I may just about have swallowed the climate hypocrisy if this flow of funds had ever taken place. Instead, we have the worst of all worlds: capture by rent seekers, undermining of emission reduction action, and the reek of injustice.
It's up to you, Chris, to keep hammering away!
(And I like your new Substack guise)
Yes, as we knew from the very beginning, carbon markets are a gift to Wall Street types.
If carbon "offsets" actually fully funded forest preservation and biodiversity, in a properly transparent manner, then REDD-Monitor would be unemployed.
Yes, the remaining carbon, especially coal, must be left as is, properly sequestered in ground. Especially if coal use ceased immediately, there would be time to properly reduce other fossil fuel uses.
Bear in mind that the entirety of civilization has been built upon the use of fossil fuels and the promise of their enduring availability. If the use and availability should cease, the coyote will then see that civilization no longer has any support and will enter free-fall.
Rather than people seeking ever more energy from ever more sources, they (especially in global North) need to drastically cut back all energy use to world per-capita usage (or less). Such fundamental societal change requires what Dr. Maja Goepel calls "double-decoupling" and in a short-cut type of answer I suggest setting Limits to Progress.
Meanwhile, oxygen pricing is a better interim measure rather than this carbon trickery.