The statement that the carbon market "is an important enabler of emission reductions" is grasping for straws - this was never the intent. Offsets were meant to be a carbon exchange - you pollute here in exchange for (supposedly) sequestering carbon over there. Except that the sequestering was (and is still) bogus, a clever manipulation, …
The statement that the carbon market "is an important enabler of emission reductions" is grasping for straws - this was never the intent. Offsets were meant to be a carbon exchange - you pollute here in exchange for (supposedly) sequestering carbon over there. Except that the sequestering was (and is still) bogus, a clever manipulation, like a card trick.
Shell was correct to end the wasteful expense and pretension of offsets. They see that the demand side is still active (your hand on the pumps) so will continue on with business as usual. But it is "business as usual," everyone returning to their "normal" life of wanton consumption, flying, vacations, tourism, their daily commute and all the other trappings of middle class bourgeois life in the rich North, that has put us into the predicament of climate catastrophe.
The statement that the carbon market "is an important enabler of emission reductions" is grasping for straws - this was never the intent. Offsets were meant to be a carbon exchange - you pollute here in exchange for (supposedly) sequestering carbon over there. Except that the sequestering was (and is still) bogus, a clever manipulation, like a card trick.
Shell was correct to end the wasteful expense and pretension of offsets. They see that the demand side is still active (your hand on the pumps) so will continue on with business as usual. But it is "business as usual," everyone returning to their "normal" life of wanton consumption, flying, vacations, tourism, their daily commute and all the other trappings of middle class bourgeois life in the rich North, that has put us into the predicament of climate catastrophe.