3 ms·

Guardian article: > https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/19/do-carbon-credit-reduce-emissions-greenhouse-gases https://amp.theguardian.com/environm

Guardian article: > https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/19/do-carbon-credit-reduce-emissions-greenhouse-gases https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/19/do-carbo... First line is a bit of a fudge: > The vast majority of the environmental projects most frequently used to offset greenhouse gas emissions appear to have fundamental failings suggesting they cannot be relied upon to cut planet-heating emissions, according to a new analysis. Starts strong with "vast majority" but gets woolier from there. Does "cannot be relied upon" mean they'll only work 1 time in 100 or 10 or 2? And we are only "suggesting" that conclusion? And do I have dejavue or did they run this same story about 6 months ago? I definitely remember debate about the definition of "junk" status.

ZeroGravitas 3y ago
Also, feels a bit cheeky that non carbon benefits are ignored: > Assessing the health, social, economic or other local benefits – or harms – were beyond the scope of this investigation and did not influence the classification But then non carbon problems are mentioned: > In some cases large dams have been associated with land disputes, displacement, increased poverty and environmental damage To be clear, I think we should be moving away from fossil fuels as fast as possible as that's the core cause of climate change and we have alternatives. I don't think this is a particularly fair take on the imperfect tool of voluntary carbon markets, because "tool is imperfect and can be improved" isn't a good headline.