In an earlier draft of this post, I compared the COP30 emissions calculator with a couple of others, and got very different results. I ended up deleting that paragraph, mainly because I had no way of knowing which emissions calculator was correct.
I just read this New Scientist article, and it looks like they were probably all underestimating the real impact of flying on the climate:
The contradictions of the system. It would be interesting to know which conservation organizations, or indigenous peoples' rights organizations, have decided to compensate. Thank you for the article, very interesting.
I agree, it would be interesting to know which organisations bought these carbon credits, which organisations didn't, and why. I found it interesting that of the 50,000 people attending COP30, only one of them forwarded the UNFCCC's email to me about the "GHG Emissions Offset Opportunity". Fortunately, one was enough!
I attended a conference in the US earlier in October. The conference was great, and we had great sessions discussing climate colonialism, energy transition, Indigenous land management, and more. However, what stung me was that the conference planned to generate carbon credits to help offset the travel emissions of participants. The credits will be generated as the conference utilizes recyclable name plaques, provides only vegetarian food, etc. Fortunately, they decided not to proceed with the idea after a public consultation session, most of us voiced against the concept of "offset" and "neutral." It is unfortunately impossible for a public event to be carbon neutral, and the concept itself is more so a scam for greenwashing. Acknowledging the emissions authentically while continuing to do sustainable practices as a contribution, not for public propaganda or profit-seeking credits, is what a conference aiming for true climate action should do.
Thank you for this apt summary of the depressing outcome of COP30. I work with the No REDD in Africa Network, A network of civil society organisations, activists and communities who are exposing and building resistance to the spread of false solutions especially REDD on the continent. www.no-redd.africa. As one who is extensively knowledgeable on carbon offsets and REDD issues, we will like to have you speak on a webinar, interview or feature on our Podcast series where we talk about the dangers and misconceptions of REDD. I look forward to hearing from you. OduduAbasi -oduduabasi@homef.org
In the Paris Agreement era, claiming “carbon neutrality” through the use of legacy CDM credits, voluntary cancellation, and event-level storytelling represents a fundamental misalignment with the current climate governance framework.
In an earlier draft of this post, I compared the COP30 emissions calculator with a couple of others, and got very different results. I ended up deleting that paragraph, mainly because I had no way of knowing which emissions calculator was correct.
I just read this New Scientist article, and it looks like they were probably all underestimating the real impact of flying on the climate:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2502290-your-flight-emissions-are-way-higher-than-carbon-calculators-suggest/
The contradictions of the system. It would be interesting to know which conservation organizations, or indigenous peoples' rights organizations, have decided to compensate. Thank you for the article, very interesting.
I agree, it would be interesting to know which organisations bought these carbon credits, which organisations didn't, and why. I found it interesting that of the 50,000 people attending COP30, only one of them forwarded the UNFCCC's email to me about the "GHG Emissions Offset Opportunity". Fortunately, one was enough!
I attended a conference in the US earlier in October. The conference was great, and we had great sessions discussing climate colonialism, energy transition, Indigenous land management, and more. However, what stung me was that the conference planned to generate carbon credits to help offset the travel emissions of participants. The credits will be generated as the conference utilizes recyclable name plaques, provides only vegetarian food, etc. Fortunately, they decided not to proceed with the idea after a public consultation session, most of us voiced against the concept of "offset" and "neutral." It is unfortunately impossible for a public event to be carbon neutral, and the concept itself is more so a scam for greenwashing. Acknowledging the emissions authentically while continuing to do sustainable practices as a contribution, not for public propaganda or profit-seeking credits, is what a conference aiming for true climate action should do.
Thank you for this apt summary of the depressing outcome of COP30. I work with the No REDD in Africa Network, A network of civil society organisations, activists and communities who are exposing and building resistance to the spread of false solutions especially REDD on the continent. www.no-redd.africa. As one who is extensively knowledgeable on carbon offsets and REDD issues, we will like to have you speak on a webinar, interview or feature on our Podcast series where we talk about the dangers and misconceptions of REDD. I look forward to hearing from you. OduduAbasi -oduduabasi@homef.org
In the Paris Agreement era, claiming “carbon neutrality” through the use of legacy CDM credits, voluntary cancellation, and event-level storytelling represents a fundamental misalignment with the current climate governance framework.