Skip to navigationSkip to content
Close
An (Even More) Inconvenient Truth: Why Carbon Credits For Forest Preservation May Be Worse Than Nothing

An (Even More) Inconvenient Truth: Why Carbon Credits For Forest Preservation May Be Worse Than Nothing

Read more on ProPublica

Contributions

  • Sadly, for the "Hope is not a strategy" file. "The best we can hope for is a program that helps the climate in some unmeasurable way, she said. “That’s what offsets are. And I think that’s the best of what offsets can be.”"

  • This is an important investigation but it isn't a complete destruction of the effectiveness of forest offsets. There are still legitimate ways to use offsets in forest preservation. In brief, small projects don't work. But big ones like countrywide or statewide can: http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2019/05/23/what-propublicas-forest-carbon-credits-story-gets-wrong-and-right

    This is an important investigation but it isn't a complete destruction of the effectiveness of forest offsets. There are still legitimate ways to use offsets in forest preservation. In brief, small projects don't work. But big ones like countrywide or statewide can: http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2019/05/23/what-propublicas-forest-carbon-credits-story-gets-wrong-and-right/

  • On one hand I want corporations to feel a sense of responsibility for their carbon usage, but on the other hand why cant they use less carbon to begin with?

    The simple premise that carbon offset’s allow polluters to ‘feel better’ is crazy it does not equalize, they are still polluting. Alternatively

    On one hand I want corporations to feel a sense of responsibility for their carbon usage, but on the other hand why cant they use less carbon to begin with?

    The simple premise that carbon offset’s allow polluters to ‘feel better’ is crazy it does not equalize, they are still polluting. Alternatively, I am glad companies are contributing to causes that seek to preserve the rainforest, but we need a better system.

  • Carbon “offsets” are a comfortable delusion. Mitigating deforestation is crucial, but the idea that reducing deforestation is in some way equivalent to reducing pollution is laughable— nothing but a distraction to get the public to think progress is being made when it isn’t.

    Not to mention that, as

    Carbon “offsets” are a comfortable delusion. Mitigating deforestation is crucial, but the idea that reducing deforestation is in some way equivalent to reducing pollution is laughable— nothing but a distraction to get the public to think progress is being made when it isn’t.

    Not to mention that, as made clear in the article, the offset programs frequently fail to reduce deforestation anyway.

  • It's interesting the mental gymnastics that we humans will entertain to make our habits 'better' for ourselves, our family, our world.

  • There have always been compliance markets for those who would prefer to pay in fiat currency rather than change their business models in order to comply with regulations. Carbon offsets may be no different than any other mechanism buy compliance to regulations, but some analysis definitely needs to be

    There have always been compliance markets for those who would prefer to pay in fiat currency rather than change their business models in order to comply with regulations. Carbon offsets may be no different than any other mechanism buy compliance to regulations, but some analysis definitely needs to be done over the aggregate effect, impact, unintended consequences and risk.

  • More evidence that market-based solutions are no solutions at all when it comes to the climate crisis. Degrowth, which is what numerous climate scientists advocate, is the only way forward. That means an end to our current economic system and a move to a more compassionate, collective system where livelihoods

    More evidence that market-based solutions are no solutions at all when it comes to the climate crisis. Degrowth, which is what numerous climate scientists advocate, is the only way forward. That means an end to our current economic system and a move to a more compassionate, collective system where livelihoods, not profit, is the goal.

  • What’s clear is what’s needed is both a commitment against deforestation and for developed nations to turn toward clean energy. Carbon offsets lived in an a vision of the world in which we only needed one to happen. That reality has long passed.

  • Tax deductions to support forests and other environmental improvements should be encouraged and applauded but allowing these contributions to offset pollution levels caused by these companies provides no incentive to improve environmental controls.

  • This isn’t the best way by any means, but it’s a good attempt to mitigate climate change. No it won’t get us to zero net emissions but it along with a carbon tax and efforts to cut emissions will.