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.
Any chance these developments would inspire you to undertake some reflection on the strategic implications of your own advocacy? Attacking and destroying the "distraction" does not lead, here, to better effort on reduced emissions. The opposite. NBS and emissions reductions are sibling efforts in the broader tapestry of climate advocacy. You attack one part and you undermine the whole. At least worth considering.
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.
Any chance these developments would inspire you to undertake some reflection on the strategic implications of your own advocacy? Attacking and destroying the "distraction" does not lead, here, to better effort on reduced emissions. The opposite. NBS and emissions reductions are sibling efforts in the broader tapestry of climate advocacy. You attack one part and you undermine the whole. At least worth considering.