Thank you very much for this necessary background to unterstand carbon markets. It is not only a wrong thinking or superficial. It is backed by huge financial interest, not at least covered by World Economic Forum (WCF). Instead of limiting the increasing growth for every unnecessary bullshit they call it "Green Growth", but it is Greenwashing!
Exactly - Lauren Gifford's comment on "who [carbon offsetting schemes] work _for_."
Yes, it's part of the move toward "market-based solutions." Business cannot work in abstract ideals. If it can possibly, even in its far-fetched imagination, move any problem into the realm of money, then it will do so, by default. And the more money they shuffle around, like the pea under the cups, the more it looks like they are doing something. But what it is that they are actually doing has absolutely nothing to do with a real solution to the world's problems.
These NGOs are very (self?) important organizations, as you mention regarding policy development but more importantly, in framing the conversation so that everyone else trying to think of solutions has to warp their thoughts through that artificial frame.
And being so important, do you want anyone but the best financial minds siting on boards, often on many boards? This shows the benefits to big business of having primarily a Financial focus on boards, thereby eliminating any possible distractive ideologies or practical concerns to creep into the dialogue.
Trying to create market-based solutions lies in the realm of financializing Nature, which becomes more and more an "enclosing of the Commons" since Nature is a shared commons heritage which is beyond the scope of finance.
Thank you very much for this necessary background to unterstand carbon markets. It is not only a wrong thinking or superficial. It is backed by huge financial interest, not at least covered by World Economic Forum (WCF). Instead of limiting the increasing growth for every unnecessary bullshit they call it "Green Growth", but it is Greenwashing!
Good reporting on an under publicized issue, Chris. Thanks.
Exactly - Lauren Gifford's comment on "who [carbon offsetting schemes] work _for_."
Yes, it's part of the move toward "market-based solutions." Business cannot work in abstract ideals. If it can possibly, even in its far-fetched imagination, move any problem into the realm of money, then it will do so, by default. And the more money they shuffle around, like the pea under the cups, the more it looks like they are doing something. But what it is that they are actually doing has absolutely nothing to do with a real solution to the world's problems.
These NGOs are very (self?) important organizations, as you mention regarding policy development but more importantly, in framing the conversation so that everyone else trying to think of solutions has to warp their thoughts through that artificial frame.
And being so important, do you want anyone but the best financial minds siting on boards, often on many boards? This shows the benefits to big business of having primarily a Financial focus on boards, thereby eliminating any possible distractive ideologies or practical concerns to creep into the dialogue.
Trying to create market-based solutions lies in the realm of financializing Nature, which becomes more and more an "enclosing of the Commons" since Nature is a shared commons heritage which is beyond the scope of finance.