carbonparadox.org

How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. 

Now we have some hope of making progress. (Niels Bohr)

Day 2: Polluters Paradox

—

in

Today’s paradox deals with another head-scratcher. Who should buy carbon credits? 

At first glance, the answer seems obvious: the biggest polluters! After all, they’re at the heart of the climate crisis and have the deepest pockets!

Here’s the twist: Polluters purchasing carbon credits are often accused of “greenwashing”—using them as smokescreens to avoid directly reducing their own emissions.

Critics argue that only “clean” companies, those that have already aligned their emissions reductions with science-based targets, should be permitted to participate in carbon markets.

This creates a paradox: “Clean” companies pay for carbon credits while “dirty” ones escape responsibility and don’t pay.

What do you think? Who should pay for carbon credits?

How to solve the paradox?

Comments

8 responses to “Day 2: Polluters Paradox”

  1. Michael Avatar
    Michael

    You enforce both, but initially starting with a reduction, and once “homework done” a certain percentage and maybe an increasing on, can be offset with VCCs.

    Reply
  2. Lavinia Warnars Avatar
    Lavinia Warnars

    Companies should first act on ESG factors, especially the E, in regards to sope 1, 2 and even 3, followed by scope 4 (avoided emissions) and scope 5: handprint/impact creation by supporting and investing in climate / nature projects.

    In other words, carbon credits should not fall under first couple of ESG scopes (clean your own house first), but more on the later. In that sense, polluters, responsibles, and those who feel and can carry an extra load (Stewards) can invest in carbon and/or even in biodiversity credits.

    Yet, in the end, we should all become Earth Stewards, and not only the wealthiest of us, by any means, whether that is investing or cleaning up garbage, we should all feel responsible for the future of this Planet.

    Reply
  3. Mikkel Larsen Avatar
    Mikkel Larsen

    What we need more than anything is clear guidance (e.g. from SBTi, VCMI) about when has a company done “enough” to use credits. When is other alternatives not “Technically feasible or Economically Viable”. This more than anything would promote clarity and reduce risk of companies being accused of greenwashing. Would be keenly interested to hear about any guidance in this area.

    Reply
  4. Benno Avatar
    Benno

    Does not the ability to pay off a third party with money in exchange for a “clean” or seemingly carbon-free company front set a wrong incentive?
    As long as nobody asks or publishes, how much damage the profits paying for carbon offsets caused in the first place, greenwashing is the reality.

    Reply
  5. Ramazan Aslan Avatar
    Ramazan Aslan

    I don’t think that first reduce and then compensate the emissions is right for fossil fuel sectors. They simply cannot do that as their product contains high CO2 (I am opting out CCS and SF as they are not imminent, viable solutions for such an urgent problem). So they shall not buy offsets but need to pay social-economic cost of CO2 (which was more than 200 USD in according to recent researchs), for each tonne of their CO2 emissions. The payment needs to be done to the dedicated public fund of the country which they sell their products, to be used to support clean techs. Countries can issue credits to the oil&gas companies for their payment.

    Other corporates shall buy high integrity removal credits for their Scope-1, Scope-2 emissions and high integrity credits for non-compensated Scope-3 emissions from their value chain. However, every year offsets to compansate 10% of Scope-3 emissions need to be replaced by removals and after 10 yrs, only high integrity removal credits will be allowed for Scope-3 emissions.

    Reply
  6. Nick Aster Avatar
    Nick Aster

    Does it really matter who buys them? There is only one atmosphere.

    The obvious better solution would be to have a government imposed price on emissions, which simply gets paid by emitters. Money raised goes into a pool which is either returned to taxpayers or funds the infrastructure of the carbon marketplace. If they want to buy credits instead of reducing emissions they still pay.

    Of course this a near impossibility in the US for the next 4 years, at least.

    Reply
  7. Angie Hernandez Avatar
    Angie Hernandez

    Should the question not rather be: Who should take climate action? And should the reply not be “everyone”?
    Many companies do not take climate action at all – be it in-house reductions, offsets or anything else – but they don’t see to be taking much of a beating currently, while those that DO take some level of climate action in one or another form seem to take the beating.

    Is this how it should be? And if so, why? Maybe because there are a lot of different ways and means to take climate action and they to a certain point compete for limited funding? Should we not then talk about making the overall climate funding pie bigger?

    Reply
  8. Thomas Krabbe Avatar
    Thomas Krabbe

    IMHO it doesn’t matter if only high quality carbon credits would be available and all companies would be measuring, managing and disclosing their emissions under proper GHG accounting standards.

    Since demand for high quality carbon credits will be dramatically higher than supply, prices would skyrocket, creating a strong incentive to look for carbon savings first before buying super expensive offsets.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *