3 Comments
May 9Liked by Chris Lang

Dear Chris,

We appreciate your continuous efforts to expose the frauds, perils and ethical pitfalls of REDD+, carbon markets and offsetting. However, we noticed that this article has selectively quoted one sentence from Forest Peoples Programme’s recent explainer series about the risks to indigenous peoples from forest carbon markets and portrayed the aim of our report as somehow being contrary to the sentiment shared by indigenous representative from Sivungaq. With a key guiding principle of our work being to support and respect indigenous peoples’ rights to self-determination and free, prior and informed consent, this explainer series is intended to set out questions that are important for indigenous peoples to ask and consider in order to be able to make any truly informed decisions about such markets. We completely agree that it is vital that indigenous peoples can take decisions based on full knowledge of the risks and implications of these markets for themselves and others, and this is precisely the reason we wrote this explainer series (as explained in the “purpose of these Explainers” on page 4).

Readers who would like to know what FPP really advises, should refer to full document available at: https://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/default/files/documents/Carbon%20Markets%20Explainers%20ENG%20SINGLE%20PAGES%20DIGITAL.pdf

Best,

Oda Almås, Forest Peoples Programme

Expand full comment

Carbon taxes and carbon engineering are the bigger scam. Mother Nature, through the carbon cycle, is already a great carbon engineer. Let our water flow

Expand full comment

Exactly true, all of this. If they knew the true consequences, would they take any amount of money? So true! Now, where is the petition to sign?

Expand full comment