This paradox touches on ethics. Is it morally right to put a price on nature? Is it ethically correct to use capitalism, which caused much of the climate crisis, to solve it? And here’s another: is it ethical to develop carbon projects in poorer countries when wealthier nations caused most of the damage?
We degrade nature because we value dead wood more than living forests. Carbon credits are one way of correcting that by recognising the value of nature’s ecosystem services. But can money-driven solutions truly respect the intrinsic value of ecosystems and communities?
At first glance, it appears immoral – but paradoxically, you can argue the exact opposite, too: Is it moral NOT to use every tool at our disposal to fight climate change, particularly a powerful tool like capitalism? Is it moral NOT to prioritise projects in those countries that are most affected by climate change?
It’s a delicate balance–a tightrope walk between virtue and pragmatism, deep ecology and environmental finance. Yet, finding that balance might be our best shot at tackling the climate crisis.
Let’s discuss it! Can capitalism and morality coexist in climate action? Should the Global North primarily fund projects in the Global South? Or do you think the opposite is true? 💬👇
How to solve this paradox?
Leave a Reply