Good questions! I'm doing research about the political ecology and climate justice aspects of the forest fires in Bolivia at the moment and I just spend two weeks with an Indigenous community. I can assure you there was no process of free, prior and informed consent. In fact, the concept of carbon credits is mostly unbeknown to the communities living here that lost 80% of their lands because of last year's devastating fires.
Thanks Tosana! I would be very surprised if any process of free, prior and informed consent has been carried out (or even started) regarding the Bolivian government's and Laconic Infrastructure Partners' plans to sell US$1.2 billion carbon credits.
Aye, there's the rub - your question #7 - if only carbon credits could pay for removal of that tonne of CO2 without being used as an "offset" to allow yet another tonne to be released. But as with other forms of carbon taxation, you can't balance that set of books, the liability side remains as a debt unresolved while this paradox does not exist in oxygen pricing. And with question #15, nobody can ever properly resolve the FPIC issue since they will not convey to the Indigenous Peoples the actual effects of the long-term loss of their land rights. The net result is it moves the people away from their own version of sovereign natural wealth into a condition of being money vassals and these projects always put a low value on this deceptive change. In natural wealth, poverty does not exists until corrupted by money. That must be explained in FIPC.
Good questions! I'm doing research about the political ecology and climate justice aspects of the forest fires in Bolivia at the moment and I just spend two weeks with an Indigenous community. I can assure you there was no process of free, prior and informed consent. In fact, the concept of carbon credits is mostly unbeknown to the communities living here that lost 80% of their lands because of last year's devastating fires.
Thanks Tosana! I would be very surprised if any process of free, prior and informed consent has been carried out (or even started) regarding the Bolivian government's and Laconic Infrastructure Partners' plans to sell US$1.2 billion carbon credits.
Aye, there's the rub - your question #7 - if only carbon credits could pay for removal of that tonne of CO2 without being used as an "offset" to allow yet another tonne to be released. But as with other forms of carbon taxation, you can't balance that set of books, the liability side remains as a debt unresolved while this paradox does not exist in oxygen pricing. And with question #15, nobody can ever properly resolve the FPIC issue since they will not convey to the Indigenous Peoples the actual effects of the long-term loss of their land rights. The net result is it moves the people away from their own version of sovereign natural wealth into a condition of being money vassals and these projects always put a low value on this deceptive change. In natural wealth, poverty does not exists until corrupted by money. That must be explained in FIPC.