carbonparadox.org

How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. 

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

Day 16: Control Paradox

—

in ,

This is one of the shortest but most tricky paradoxes. 

Yes or no, should you fully control how the money is spent on the ground when you buy carbon credits from a project?

If your answer is “no,” you risk criticism for allowing potential misuse of funds due to lack of oversight. 

If your answer is “yes,” paradoxically, you face an utterly different critique: accusations of not trusting and empowering local authorities and communities. This can be perceived as paternalistic or even neo-colonial.

How to address the control paradox?

Comments

2 responses to “Day 16: Control Paradox”

  1. Tim Reutemann Avatar
    Tim Reutemann

    Our approach is super simple, but also extreme high control. Every payment has two corresponding videos (before-after). The before-video is used to green light the action, the after-video is what we pay for.

    However, we don’t care at all how the money was spent exactly to get from before to after. So no other receipts needed, at least not until a third party forces us to collect them.

    Reply
  2. Sipho Avatar
    Sipho

    If a buyer is to exercise full control or have ultimate authority over how and where funds are allocated, they would require extensive knowledge and direct experience in all aspects of the project’s activities and the surrounding environment. This includes understanding cultural acceptance, environmental suitability, economic barriers, logistical planning, and numerous other factors specific to the project area. For most buyers, dedicating the time and resources necessary to meet these requirements is neither practical nor feasible.

    The most transparent and effective approach is for buyers to visit the project in person. By doing so, they can observe firsthand the project’s historical successes, the allocation and utilization of funds, the individuals involved, and the overall implementation process. This experience allows buyers to reconcile their financial contributions with the project’s records and provides them the opportunity to revisit the site to verify whether the intended deliverables have been achieved.

    A project’s reputation is paramount, as any adverse reports can deter potential buyers—a phenomenon widely observed over the past 18 months. With direct, tangible evidence gathered through personal observation, buyers gain more than just insight into their funding; they are also better positioned to support projects against false claims or biased reports. This direct engagement fosters trust and strengthens the credibility of the project while ensuring the buyer’s confidence in the integrity of their investment.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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