This paradox deals with (overblown) expectations. 

Carbon credits were created for two purposes. First and foremost, they are here to finance greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Second, they shall promote sustainable development in the host countries. 

When buying carbon credits from a community-based project, such as efficient cookstoves, regenerative agriculture or forest restoration, our hopes and expectations are high: The carbon credits shall help make the world fairer and more equitable. 

However, when tackling specific challenges, these projects often highlight other inequalities and unresolved issues. For example, a clean cookstove program may reduce indoor air pollution and alleviate pressure on dwindling forests. Yet, it cannot address other, potentially more urgent problems such as lack of education, health challenges, gender inequalities, or widespread poverty.

Buyer’s expectations can quickly turn to disappointment upon realizing that, despite the supported project, local communities continue to live in poverty, and several pressing issues remain unsolved.

Paradoxically, by tackling one problem, these initiatives risk criticism for not addressing others—issues that may have gone unnoticed without the project’s spotlight.

We hope you enjoyed the paradoxes and got some inspiration to address and solve as many of them as possible. Our expectation and hope are that you continue exploring these paradoxes – may we address and solve as many of them as possible next year.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!