mitigation
The views and beliefs conveyed in this piece are solely attributable to the writer and do not reflect the official standpoint of Euronews.
Our planet is in the midst of a climate crisis that requires immediate attention. However, it is not sufficient to solely focus on decreasing the amount of greenhouse gases emitted. It is imperative that we also take action to extract carbon from the air.
Last month, the crucial report provided by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change highlighted the pressing necessity for bolder steps towards grappling with the climate issue. It emphasized the need for urgent measures to mitigate the rapidly developing climate catastrophe.
This is where attempts to lower carbon emissions using market approaches become relevant.
The value of carbon offsets could potentially lose significance.
By utilizing carbon offsets that are based on nature, we can partially offset the challenging-to-remove emissions of carbon dioxide.
Offsets have the potential to aid in solving climate issues by preserving and recovering forests. However, we should not view them as a means for polluting industries to absolve themselves of blame - offsetting must be combined with measures that actually decrease emissions.
Carbon markets trade carbon offsets to encourage decreasing emissions, making it financially beneficial for companies to fund emission reduction initiatives.
Lately, there have been various opinion pieces and investigations shedding light on the shortcomings of nature-based carbon offsetting. One such article, titled "Carbon offsets don't work. It's time for the EU to change its approach" was published by Euronews, while The Guardian's "Revealed: more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by biggest certifier are worthless, analysis shows" delved into the matter even further. These pieces have unearthed significant concerns pertaining to the dependability of nature-based carbon offsetting.
If measures based on the market are not reducing the amount of carbon emissions, then the idea of relying on carbon offsets to decrease emissions loses its significance.
If the situation is like this, there wouldn't be much use in encouraging market-based action since it wouldn't actually result in decreasing emissions.
Legitimate Projects also Exist for Offsetting
The purpose of nature-based carbon offsets was never to rescue us. Rather, they are just one of many actions necessary to tackle emissions.
Numerous studies conducted over the years have shown that preserving and renewing forests is a highly effective method for enhancing the process of carbon dioxide absorption and storage.
As a result, transforming this into a mechanism based on market principles could prove to be a step towards tackling climate change while also aiding in the preservation and reclamation of ecosystems. Moreover, valuable financial aid could be directed towards the Global South.
It's essential to mention that there have been occurrences where deceitful or problematic carbon offsets, based on nature, have been traded before. Nevertheless, there are also dependable projects for offsetting that have efficiently decreased and counteracted emissions.
Kenya has two impressive demonstrations, namely the Mikoko Pamoja community-run effort to conserve mangroves and the Vanga Blue Forest project. These examples have set the benchmark on how carbon offset initiatives can be executed in a fair and unbiased manner that provides equitable advantages to communities.
Big corporations like Microsoft have made it a top priority to buy carbon offsets that come with various advantages. For instance, in Kenya, investing in these projects has helped safeguard mangrove forests, while at the same time, generating profits from selling carbon offsets - which have positively impacted the local community.
The construction of new wells for freshwater and the acquisition of hospital supplies and educational reading materials for nearby kids have been made feasible thanks to the income produced from carbon.
Ensuring that finances are made known to all parties involved and providing equal opportunities to all genders are fundamental aspects of managing projects effectively.
Global nations are acknowledging the situation.
An important aspect of creating a reliable nature-based carbon offsetting industry is establishing strong regulations to govern the market.
It is the duty of national administrations to handle the advantages and disadvantages of participating in the carbon marketplace for their populace.
Despite the encouraging instances in Kenya, the latest negative articles suggest that a unified approach may be necessary to tackle concerns like extra benefits, unintended consequences of actions, and long-term sustainability of advantages, on a national level for a more effective and enduring resolution.
Besides better management, it is necessary to have an unbiased authentication and principles to attain the highest carbon offset gains for societies and nations rather than only benefiting from the traditional market players.
Many nations are paying attention to the importance of maintaining high-integrity coastal and marine environments, which are also known as "blue carbon" offsetting. This was a major point of discussion during a public session held at the International Partnership for Blue Carbon's latest dialogue meeting.
There have been recent national discussions held in Indonesia and Papua New Guinea acknowledging the importance of improving the governance of carbon markets that are based on nature.
Looking at what Kenya has gone through, we can picture carbon offsets that are dependable and can be traced back to nature, and they have the potential to offer benefits to both the environment and the surrounding communities. It is crucial that these offsets can be backed up by evidence to confirm their authenticity.
"How Criticism Can Positively Impact the Carbon Market"
The current criticisms aimed at using nature-based methods to offset carbon emissions give us a chance to take a step back and assess the real situation in the industry.
Definitely, we should examine the existing projects and check if they fulfill their commitments regarding the environment, society and wildlife.
We should also concentrate on ensuring that the market operates effectively for communities and nations. This can be achieved by establishing a revenue flow from north to south that appreciates nature, and where carbon offsets can contribute to safeguarding it if implemented appropriately.
The situation in Kenya demonstrates that carbon offsetting programs based on community involvement can be successful, and governments are showing a strong interest in taking action.
To further develop and make tangible advancements in the battle against climate change, the market must be open to criticism and adapt accordingly.
Steven Lutz holds the position of a respected Senior Programme Officer and proficient Blue Carbon Lead for GRID-Arendal, which is a Norwegian foundation that collaborates with the United Nations Environment Programme.
Here at Euronews, we value everyone's opinions. If you want to join the discussion, feel free to pitch your ideas or submit your thoughts to us at [email protected]. We'll be happy to hear from you!
