4 ms·
Encouraging is not the term I would use. This has been known for years. There was a huge piece of journalism a couple of years (which I am unable to find atm, I
by _Algernon_ 3y ago
Encouraging is not the term I would use. This has been known for years. There was a huge piece of journalism a couple of years (which I am unable to find atm, I'll edit it in if I find it) ago that went through a bunch of carbon offsets projects including this one and already revealed the problems with it.
If anything this just shows that even though problems are revealed, they keep happening, and companies keep getting away with their greenwashing claims. That is the exact opposite of encouraging.
- graemep 3y agoThis is not just carbon offset though, it is emissions reduction too (not sure what the proportions are) and it could work. Agree completely about offsets being used for green washing. There is a large element of Goodhart's law here. Policy is driven by meeting metrics.
- BlueTemplar 3y agoThis one ? https://www.france.tv/france-2/cash-investigation/saison-4/172255-climat-le-grand-bluff-des-multinationales.html https://www.france.tv/france-2/cash-investigation/saison-4/1... More than a couple of years though (2016).
- grotorea 3y agoThere was a couple of The Guardian investigations, but it was mostly about another type of questionable carbon credit source, forest protection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verified_Carbon_Standard#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verified_Carbon_Standard#Contr... And the fact that this article mentions Gold Standard as being much better with the cookstoves and it avoiding some of that forest credits makes me think it's the good carbon credit issuer. Anyone with access to the scientific article proper can tell who issued the carbon credits for cookstoves? edit: I also forgot where I read this but IIRC Verra has more corporate origins while Gold Standard comes from the NGO world may also be relevant.