Draft cover
November 7, 2025
“Why The Carbon Paradox Might be the Most Important Climate Novel of Our Time” by Kezia Saudale
Graduate Student at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)
Read or download the review here.
October 25-31, 2025
Award by Exchange Invest: “Book of the Week”
See the award certificate here.
October 5, 2025
Review by Axel Michaelowa, Climate Policy Specialist, University of Zurich and Founder, Perspectives
Read the review here.
The “Carbon Paradox” is a bold attempt to discuss challenges to the generation and sale of emission credits from forestry projects in developing countries in the voluntary carbon market (VCM) in the form of a novel. Inasmuch it is unique. The novel is written in an engaging style and is fascinating reading, the fictitious countries, companies and individuals are portrayed vividly. The reader immediately recognizes that the authors have been deeply involved in the development of such VCM projects, have been bruised by severe criticisms and fought against many odds but have not given up. Their personal experiences shine through the novel. The plot is built around the identification of a series of contradictions that makes development of VCM forestry projects difficult and publicly contested. These paradoxes relate to the need to
- prove additionality while additional projects are less attractive than non-additional ones
- show that a forest is endangered in order to qualify for crediting
- for the project developer to control project implementation while not wanting to be seen as neo-colonialist control freak
- involve local communities while these are internally fragmented and have different views on project proposals,
- determine a baseline which necessarily is a counterfactual and cannot be “proven”
- ensure that always the latest science is considered in baseline and monitoring methodologies which leads to a hectic scramble for revisions and a lack of trust in projects that use older versions
- reconcile different stakeholders that all may have good intentions but still different interests
- determine leakage, which the project developer normally cannot control
- show that small project developers and emission credits are “perfect” while big actors like fossil fuel producers behave badly and get away with it.
- downgrade national ambition regarding emission targets and policies in order to maximize credit volumes
- preserve unity in the very broad and diverse movement wanting to fight climate change
- redefine claims of the use of credits from offsetting which has fallen out of favour towards mitigation contributions
- move quickly in project implementation in order to save forests while being able to meticulously document each step of the activity
- solve all problems of the world through a VCM forestry project which realistically is impossible
- show new trees which are much more ineffective mitigation than protecting a standing forest
- navigate between the radical climate activist and the “do nothing” camps
- report on all aspects of a project which is then often used by opponents to attack the project
- prove quality, which slows down project implementation and generates transaction costs
- always show innovation, and risk being overtaken by more novel, but unproven technologies like technical removals
- be able to offer cheap credits which are then deemed to be of low quality because they are cheap
Particularly the way how NGOs and journalists deal with and often try to destroy the VCM is portrayed in a stark but realistic way – the dialogue between journalists and project developers in Chapter 27 is a highlight of the novel. I also liked the fine subtleties in the text, like the use of the exact figure of opponents of the Swiss climate bill in the 2021 referendum as share of the Cresta shareholders voting against the resolution to buy emissions credits. Also, the dialogue between the Northern and Southern minister leading to an Article 6.2 agreement is very nicely elaborated.
As a carbon market expert with 30 years of experience I noted the following elements where I would have approached the topic differently. First, I would have tried to separate generic carbon market paradoxes from those specific to forestry activities. VCM goes way beyond forestry, which has been particularly battered by a series of scandals in the last three years. Second, some of the paradoxes overlap and could have been combined. Third, the probability that three students get fully into project development mode with the largest companies as prospective credit buyers is not consistent with due diligence processes of buyers in the contemporary VCM which would mean that students would not have any chance to develop large projects. Fourth, in the novel often climate finance is often mixed up with carbon market revenues. Most experts and observers make a clear separation between international public climate finance and private sector VCM purchases. Fifth, VCM credit buyers are described as benign players. However, often they try to fight climate policy in most of its forms. Sixth, Article 6 does not generate double counting risks as alleged in the novel but eliminates them through the requirement of double bookkeeping through corresponding adjustments. Seventh, the conversion of the key characters initially dismissing Article 6 as unworkable but then being converted to full Article 6 enthusiasts is a bit abrupt, as well as the sudden move towards a not really well described “climate coin” in the final happy end.
Nevertheless I can wholeheartedly recommend the book – regardless whether you are a carbon market stalwart, NGO activist or member of the general public wanting to engage with climate change in an entertaining and not deadly serious way.
September 26, 2025
Review by Dr. Anna Broughel, Economist & Educator, SAIS Johns Hopkins
Read the review here.
📖 Renat and his co-authors recently published a climate fiction novel “The Carbon Paradox” that follows a group of students striving to protect the forests of a fictional emerging economy, Demba. But they soon discover a harsh reality: to save the forest, they must prove it is worth more alive than dead, and that means confronting the paradox-filled world of carbon markets.
❗ Their journey unveils 29 paradoxes that make voluntary carbon markets difficult to navigate, even when everyone agrees on the urgency of climate action.
Here are three that hit especially close to home:
🌲 Baseline Paradox
You can only earn carbon credits if deforestation is likely or already happening. Countries that have preserved their forests receive nothing, while those that destroy them can qualify for protection funding. Good behavior is not rewarded, only the threat of bad behavior is.
💨 Polluters Paradox
The biggest polluters should be buying carbon credits to atone for emissions, but when they do, they are accused of greenwashing. Ironically, it is often the clean companies that invest in carbon projects, while the worst offenders face little pressure to act.
🧾 Perfection Paradox
Carbon projects are expected to be flawless, even though every other industry accepts trial and error. While oil drilling tolerates risk and imperfection, climate projects are dismissed at the first flaw. This double standard makes climate action harder to fund and scale.
🌍 These paradoxes are not just theoretical. Renat and Marco have experienced them firsthand. Today, they are challenging the next generation to help build carbon markets that work.
September 21, 2025
Review by Carolin Güthenke, Vice Chairperson German Biochar e.V.
Read the review here.
🏕️ During my summer vacation, I took great pleasure in delving into a topic that had previously given me quite a headache: the challenges of voluntary carbon markets as a climate protection tool. I had the opportunity to read an advance copy of the book “The Carbon Paradox” by Renat Heuberger, Marco Hirsbrunner, and Steve Zwick.
🧭 To be an advocate and pioneer for carbon dioxide removal, you need the courage not only to break new ground, but also to think about the relevant paths in the first place and identify all the relevant levers.
🪨 When it comes to implementation, I personally find understanding carbon markets to be one of the most opaque, dynamic and sometimes completely contradictory topics. Marco, Renat, and Steve impressively managed not only to summarize how carbon markets work and the challenges associated with them, but also to present this information in the form of a novel that is both easy to understand and exciting to read.
📖 I wish I had had this book in my hands years ago. I can recommend it to anyone who deals with carbon markets or certificates—regardless of whether they involve avoidance, reduction, or removal credits.
September 9, 2025
Review by Prof. Dr. Martin R. Stuchtey, The Landbanking Group
Read the review here.
The book speaks to a much overlooked limitation of today’s carbon markets.
The chapter “The Nature Paradox” brilliantly captures a fundamental market failure that can no longer remain unresolved: That forest conservation only receives funding while under threat, and reforestation loses financial support once trees mature. The example perfectly illustrates why current carbon credit mechanisms must be accompanied by novel nature markets. When protection becomes economically dependent on perpetual danger a shift from crisis-reactive to value-positive frameworks is due.
This narrative validates a core thesis that we find confirmed time and again: Sustainable nature finance must move beyond temporary carbon sequestration toward comprehensive natural capital valuation that recognizes the ongoing ecosystem services and biodiversity value of mature forests.
The chapter’s exploration of community stakeholder dynamics and the complexity of competing economic interests reinforces why multi-dimensional MRV systems integrating social, ecological, and economic metrics are essential for creating truly sustainable nature-based solutions that align local communities with conservation goals rather than forcing them into adversarial relationships with forest protection efforts.
Carbon markets can work – but were designed for a different purpose. To fix nature – we need to think further. Of that, the book makes a very convincing case.
August 28, 2025
Review by Vilhelmiina Vulli, illuminem
▶ Find the full review at illuminem here.
Or read the review directly here.
The novel begins not with carbon markets or policy jargon, but with a little girl drowning.
“‘Tragic moment when a seven-year-old girl is dragged away in a flash flood after a powerful storm hits Demba,’ reads the viral caption. Robin, a student thousands of miles away, feels a chill as he wonders if he knows her.”
It is a harrowing opening for The Carbon Paradox, a truly genre-defying work that blends fiction with fact to illuminate one of the most perplexing questions of our time: how do we fund climate action in an imperfect world?
The lead author, sustainability pioneer and Co-Founder of South Pole Renat Heuberger, explains that the book is not just about markets or policy frameworks. “First we put out the paradoxes surrounding carbon credits in detail,” Renat recalls. “But then we realised we had lived through all that. Would it be possible to make these credits come alive for people?”
Carbon credits are notoriously complex, riddled with acronyms and disputes. But in this fictional world, they are also deeply human. Behind every offset lies a forest, a community, a story, and sometimes, a tragedy.
“Our role is to build the platform, the framework,” he told me. “We can’t dictate the outcome, but we can cultivate the space for it. Think of it like a garden: we prepare the soil, provide the tools, and ensure access to water and sunlight. But it’s the people who must choose what to plant, and how to make it grow.”
That philosophy – humane, humble, and urgent – underpins the novel.
Why this book, why now
The timing, Heuberger admits, was not accidental. The project began as a technical mapping of what he and his collaborators call the carbon paradoxes — thirty dilemmas that have dogged the market since its inception.
But real-world events quickly reshaped the fictional world. “When Trump became president again,” he said, “we realised that perhaps the end of the book was even more important. It couldn’t just be about credits and compliance. It had to be about people seeing and hearing each other again, meeting again, connecting.”
So the narrative took form: three university students, galvanised by a viral climate tragedy, set off for the tropics of Demba, a fictional tropical nation, to implement carbon-funded projects. Their journey becomes less about saving forests and more about navigating the various paradoxes that haunt every attempt at climate finance.
When policy becomes personal
One of the book’s vivid scenes takes place not in a government office or a corporate boardroom, but at a bar in Demba. Characters argue over whether oil companies buying credits is salvation or sham:
“Rower is extracting all that natural gas…They are among the main culprits responsible for accelerating climate change. Should the same group producing all this CO₂ buy our carbon credits, claiming to be clean and green?” Andy snaps. Ella shoots back: “Who causes all the CO₂ emissions? It is you, Andy. And me. All of us. We all depend on their oil! Who just flew to Demba? We did!”
It’s a fiery exchange — one that could just as easily unfold at Davos, or at any students’ debating club. . Robin, the more reflective member of the group, intervenes: “I’d call this the Polluters Paradox. On one hand, the biggest polluters should be buying carbon credits—they have the money, and they’re fueling the crisis. But on the other hand, they shouldn’t, because then it risks becoming greenwashing.”
In a few pages, Heuberger and his co-authors dramatise what climate lawyers, NGOs, and CEOs have debated for decades, and does so in a way that a general reader can feel, not just understand.
A novel of paradoxes
At its core, The Carbon Paradox humanises technical dilemmas. The paradoxes — voluntary vs. compliance markets, claims vs. impacts, polluters vs. pioneers — are not presented as academic puzzles. They unfold through characters who argue, dream, stumble, and grieve. “The characters came to life,” Heuberger said. “They had real emotions. They started to live their own life.”
This makes the book unusual in the literature of climate and finance. Where most accounts rely on white papers or polemic, Heuberger offers a hybrid: a fictional story grounded in documentary fact, with characters embodying the contradictions of global carbon markets.
Lessons beyond the page
The question, of course, is whether fiction can do what technical analysis often cannot: reach people outside the “carbon bubble.” Heuberger hopes so. “It’s easy to read. You don’t have to be a scientist to understand,” he said. The novel, he argues, models how climate communication might evolve — balancing rigor with story, numbers with emotions.
The experiment has already found resonance. In late 2024, Heuberger and his colleagues launched the paradoxes as a digital “Advent calendar,” releasing one each day in December. More than 3,000 users joined, commenting, critiquing, and sharing their own experiences. “It showed us that people are hungry to engage,” he said.
The central question
Can carbon credits, for all their flaws, still form a part of climate finance? The book doesn’t offer easy answers. In fact, it resists them. Instead, it insists that the way forward is collective. “If not all stakeholders come together, it doesn’t happen,” Heuberger told me. In the novel, it takes a professor to persuade NGOs, who persuade governments, who persuade business.
What do the authors hope readers will take away? Not a simple answer, but a habit of thought: root-cause reasoning, an openness to paradox, a recognition that no single stakeholder can solve the crisis alone.
The book ends not with triumph but with a question. Is there a future for carbon credits? Or are they doomed to remain symbols of an imperfect compromise?
“Once you’ve gone through all the options,” Heuberger reflects, “you come back to carbon credits — result-based finance tokens, or we could call them climate units. The question is, how do we rethink everything?”
In that sense, The Carbon Paradox is less a novel than a mirror: a reflection of the dilemmas we all live with, dramatised so that they cannot be ignored.
illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
Track the real‑world impact behind the sustainability headlines. illuminem’s Data Hub™ offers transparent performance data and climate targets of companies driving the transition.
August 28, 2025
Testimonial by Prof. Franz Josef Rademacher, Research Institute for Applied Knowledge Processing
Read the review in German here.
Prof. Dr. Dr. Dr. h.c. Franz Josef Radermacher
Testimonial
Renat Heuberger ist ein besonders wichtiger Akteur im Bereich der Klimazertifikate (Carbon Credits). Er ist einer der Gründer von South Pole und er hat mit seinen Beiträgen die internationale Debatte zu diesem Thema geprägt. Wir haben am FAW/n seit vielen Jahren eine enge Verbindung mit ihm, deren Ausgangspunkt die Gründung der Allianz für Entwicklung und Klima im Jahr 2018 mit dem Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung unter dem damaligen Bundesminister Dr. Gerd Müller war. Wir haben in dieser Allianz Unternehmen und Einzelpersonen motiviert, ihre Klimagasemissionen volumenmäßig durch den Kauf von Klimazertifikaten auszugleichen, immer mit dem Fokus auf das Erreichen einer Situation, in der ein Individuum oder ein Unternehmen möglichst dafür Sorge trägt, dass es mehr CO2-Emissionen verhindert bzw. aus der Atmosphäre holt; als es selber direkt oder indirekt emittiert.
Wir haben für die Allianz, die heute weiter als Stiftung existiert (https://allianz-entwicklung-klima.de/die-allianz/ueber-die-allianz-und-ihre-ziele), sehr viel Zustimmung gefunden. Am Ende waren etwa 1500 Einzelpersonen und Unternehmen in der Allianz beteiligt. Im Jahr 2020 brachte das große Industrieunternehmen Robert Bosch, ein Stifter des FAW/n, es in diesem Kontext fertig, relativ kurzfristig in dem Sinne klimaneutral zu werden, als neben Veränderungen in den eigenen Produktionsprozessen das verbliebene Emissionsvolumen weltweit über Zertifikate kompensiert wurde.
Wir waren Unternehmen wie South Pole gegenüber extrem dankbar, dass sie dieses interessante Potential eröffnet haben. Allerdings bemerkten wir auch, dass sich Widerstand gegen derartige Aktivitäten aufbaute. Unter Labels wie Science-Based Targets (SBTs) versuchten Akteure für sich Betätigungsfelder und große Geldflüsse zu erschließen, in dem sie Unternehmen erklärten, man müsse seine CO2-Emissionen im eignen Unternehmen bei sich zuhause reduzieren und jede Form internationaler Verrechnung beinhalte auch immer eine Dimension von Freikauf, Ablasshandel, Greenwashing und sei u. U. sogar eine neue Form von Kolonialismus.
Mit mathematischer Logik hat das alles nichts zu tun, wohl aber viel mit Moralin und Narrativen. Und immer geht es auch um Interessen. Z. B. können sogenannten „Klimakrieger“ öffentliche Aufmerksamkeit erzielen, indem sie Aktivitäten schlecht reden. Nein-Sagen (Strategy of Conflict) ist in der modernen Medienwelt und in Social Media sehr wirksam.
Renat Heuberger und sein Team haben das alles über Jahrzehnte erlebt, durchlebt und ertragen müssen. Und die Summe ihrer Erfahrungen und die von ihnen daraus gezogenen Schlüsse sind in dem Buch The Carbon Paradox als Erzählung, als Roman in eindrucksvoller Weise zusammengefasst.
Das Buch stößt dabei auf zahlreiche Paradoxien. Sie sind der Faden, der die Geschichte des Buches zusammenbindet. Vom Additionality-Paradox zum Nature- und zum Control-Paradox, vom Polluters-Paradox und Claims und zum Speed-Paradox, vom Transparency- zum Novelty- und zum Size-Paradox, insgesamt 24 Felder, die auf einer logisch-mathematischen Ebene zu Kopfschütteln führen müssen, aber allesamt das Ende guter Projektideen bedeuteten, weil diese in der Öffentlichkeit schlecht geredet wurden – bis zur Verunmöglichen der Projekte.
Im Falle der Klimazertifikate sind die Paradoxien von der Art, dass sich enorme Medien- und Öffentlichkeitswirkungen um das vergleichsweise kleine Segment der Klimazertifikate organisieren lassen, während sehr große negative Veränderungen auf der Welt an anderer Stelle kaum Erwähnung finden. So gibt es eine Paradoxie der Kleinheit und es gibt die Paradoxie, dass wenn nichts gemacht wird, um Zustände zu verbessern, auch keine negative Kommunikation stattfindet, wenn aber jemand etwas macht, was hilft, man trotzdem das Ganze sofort hinterfragt, etwa mit dem Tenor, warum der Betreffende nicht noch mehr macht. Und wenn man in dem einen Ort eine Schule aufbaut, dann ist sofort die Frage, warum nicht auch noch eine Schule an einem anderen Nachbarort gebaut wird, in dem die Kinder mindestens ebenso dringend eine Schule benötigen. Und wenn dann Solarenergie eingeführt wird, und plötzlich mehr Malariafälle auftreten als vorher, dann wird argumentiert, dass die schädlichen Abgase des vorher eingesetzte Dieselkerosins die Stechmücken abgehalten haben. Also ist die Solarenergie schuld an mehr Malariafällen. Und wenn dann South Pole in tropischen Regenwäldern Ranger einstellt, um den Wald zu schützen, dann gibt es vor Ort plötzlich Diskussionen, wenn weibliche Rangers dabei sind – weil es sich aus Sicht vieler Kulturen für Frauen nicht ziemt, solche Aufgaben zu übernehmen. Und sollte es zwischen einem männlichen und einem weiblichen Ranger zu einer Liebesbeziehung kommen, dann zeigt auch das ganz offensichtlich, wie verwerflich das ganze Unterfangen ist. Würden aber weniger weibliche als männliche Ranger eingestellt, würde man in den Geberländern sofort einen Gender-Gap thematisieren.
Um den Charakter der Diskussion zu verdeutlichen, ist vielleicht die Betrachtung des Begriffs Carbon Credit hilfreich. Warum erzeugt dieser so viel Aggression bei kritischen Beobachtern? Weil man aus dem Wort Credit einen Anspruch herauslesen kann, dass mit dem Kauf eines Zertifikats das Recht erworben hat, CO2 in die Atmosphäre zu entlassen. Recht und Anspruch sind das Problem. Man muss dieselbe Situation deshalb anders erzählen. Die Aussage ist dann folgende: Wenn man einmal nicht vermeiden kann, CO2 in die Atmosphäre zu entlassen, was man sehr bedauert und bald möglichst ändern wird, kann es nur sinnvoll sein, das CO2 auf eigenen Kosten wieder aus der Atmosphäre zu entfernen. Und wenn man im Süden des Globus eine Tonne CO2 relativ preiswert aus der Atmosphäre entfernen kann, dann ist das nicht der „billige Jakob“, also der Versuch, Klimakosten „billig“ zu entsorgen, auch nicht der Versuch zu Lasten der Ärmsten auf dem Globus für sich ein Problem zu lösen. Das viel stärkere alternative Narrativ besteht darin zu sagen, dass man dieselbe Menge Geld aufbringt und dafür an einem Ort im Süden 6 Tonnen CO2 aus der der Atmosphäre holt, anstatt in einem reichen Land nur eine Tonne. Wobei der Faktor 6 nicht alles ist, denn es kommen im Süden auch noch viele Co-Benefits für Entwicklung hinzu.
An einer Stelle fasst Renat Heuburger seine Beobachtung sehr schön wir folgt zusammen: Es geht bei all diesen Themen nicht um Mathematik, es geht nicht um naturwissenschaftlich-logische Korrektheit, sondern um Narrative, also um Erzählungen. Und wenn wir in Bezug auf das Klima etwas bewirken wollen, dann müssen wir insbesondere auch durch eine veränderte Sprache die bisherigen Kampffelder abräumen und Möglichkeiten suchen, miteinander die Probleme zu beseitigen. In dem Sinne wird bei ihm der Begriff des Carbon Credit jetzt ersetzt durch eine Klimaeinheit (Climate Unit). Diese bedeutet, die Atmosphäre um eine Tonne CO2 zu entlasten. Das Ziel für Einzelne wie für Gruppen und Unternehmen sollte es sein, möglichst viele Klima-Units mit positiven Effekten für das Klima zu bewirken.
Summary: Das Buch ist ein Buch über politische Kommunikation im Klimabereich, das eine hohe sprachliche Sensibilität mit einem gewaltigen Erfahrungsschatz verbindet, der nur aus jahrelanger Beschäftigung mit der Materie vor Ort, z. B. in den Regenwäldern der Welt, erwachsen kann. In dem Buch lernt man sehr viel über die wirtschaftlichen Herausforderungen im Kilmaschutz und über die vielen Schwierigkeiten, die in konkreten Projekten zu bewältigen sind. Der Leser wird mit zahlreichen neuen Einsichten und Einblicken in eine Welt belohnt, die für den Umgang mit der Klima- und Energiefrage von entscheidender Bedeutung ist. Auch zeigt das Buch einen Weg auf, wie man vielleicht eine Chance hat, vielen der bisher wirksamen Paradoxien in diesem Umfeld zu entgehen. Das Buch ist eine großartige Gelegenheit, seine Erkenntnisse zu erweitern und viel dazuzulernen. Ich empfehle das Buch allen thematisch Interessierten und bin mir sicher, dass das Lesen Erkenntnisgewinn und Freude vermitteln wird. Es lohnt sich, die Zeit aufzubringen und das Buch gründlich zu studieren.
Read the review translated to English here.
Prof. Dr. Dr. Dr. h.c. Franz Josef Radermacher
Testimonial
Renat Heuberger is a particularly important player in the field of carbon credits. He is one of the founders of South Pole and has shaped the international debate on this topic with his contributions. For many years, we at FAW/n have had a close relationship with him, starting with the founding of the Alliance for Development and Climate in 2018 with the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development under the then Federal Minister Dr. Gerd Müller. In this Alliance, we motivated companies and individuals to offset their greenhouse gas emissions by purchasing carbon credits, always with the focus on achieving a situation in which an individual or a company ensures that it prevents or removes more CO2 emissions from the atmosphere than it directly or indirectly emits.
We received broad support for the Alliance, which still exists today as a foundation. In the end, around 1,500 individuals and companies participated. In 2020, the large industrial company Robert Bosch, a sponsor of FAW/n, managed in this context to become climate-neutral in the short term. In addition to changes in its own production processes, the remaining volume of emissions was offset worldwide through certificates.
We were extremely grateful to companies like South Pole for opening up this interesting potential. However, we also noticed that resistance was building against such activities. Under labels such as Science-Based Targets (SBTs), actors tried to carve out fields of activity and large financial flows for themselves by telling companies that they must reduce their CO2 emissions at home in their own companies, and that any form of international balancing always involves indulgence, absolution, greenwashing, or even a new form of colonialism.
This has nothing to do with mathematical logic, but much to do with morality and narratives. And it is always also about interests. For example, so-called climate warriors can gain public attention by discrediting activities. Saying no (Strategy of Conflict) is very effective in today’s media world and in social media.
Renat Heuberger and his team have experienced, endured, and survived all of this over decades. And the sum of their experiences and the conclusions they have drawn from them are impressively summarized in the book The Carbon Paradox as a narrative, as a novel.
The book touches on numerous paradoxes. They are the thread that ties the story of the book together: from the Additionality Paradox to the Nature and Control Paradox, from the Polluter’s Paradox and Claims to the Speed Paradox, from the Transparency to the Novelty and Size Paradox—24 fields in total, which must cause head-shaking on a logical-mathematical level, but all of which meant the end of good project ideas because they were discredited in public—sometimes to the point of making the projects impossible.
In the case of carbon credits, the paradoxes are such that enormous media and public attention can be organized around the comparatively small segment of carbon credits, while very large negative changes in the world in other areas receive hardly any mention. Thus, there is a Paradox of Smallness, and there is the paradox that if nothing is done to improve conditions, there is no negative communication, but if someone does something that helps, the whole thing is immediately questioned, with the tenor being: why did the person not do even more? And if one builds a school in one place, the immediate question is why not also in the neighboring village, where children also urgently need one. And if solar energy is introduced, and suddenly more malaria cases occur than before, it is argued that the harmful fumes from the previously used diesel kerosene had kept mosquitoes away. So solar energy is blamed for more malaria cases. And if South Pole hires rangers in tropical rainforests to protect the forest, then there are suddenly local discussions when female rangers are involved—because in the view of many cultures, it is not appropriate for women to take on such tasks. And should a romantic relationship develop between a male and a female ranger, this is cited as proof of how reprehensible the entire undertaking is. But if fewer women than men were hired as rangers, donor countries would immediately highlight a gender gap.
To illustrate the nature of the debate, it is perhaps helpful to look at the term carbon credit. Why does it provoke so much aggression among critical observers? Because the word credit can be read as implying that by purchasing a certificate one acquires the right to emit CO2 into the atmosphere. Right and entitlement are the problem. The same situation must therefore be described differently. The statement then becomes: if, on occasion, CO2 emissions into the atmosphere cannot be avoided—which one deeply regrets and intends to change as soon as possible—it only makes sense to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere at one’s own expense. And if one can remove a ton of CO2 relatively cheaply in the Global South, then this is not about cutting climate costs cheaply, nor about solving a problem at the expense of the poorest. The much stronger alternative narrative is to say that with the same amount of money, one can remove six tons of CO2 from the atmosphere in the Global South instead of just one ton in a wealthy country. And beyond the factor of six, many co-benefits for development are also added in the Global South.
At one point, Renat Heuberger summarizes his observation beautifully as follows: none of these issues are about mathematics, or about scientific-logical correctness, but about narratives—storytelling. And if we want to make a difference with regard to the climate, we must clear away the old battlegrounds, particularly by changing the language, and seek opportunities to solve the problems together. In this sense, the term carbon credit is now replaced by climate unit. This means relieving the atmosphere of one ton of CO2. The goal for individuals, groups, and companies should be to generate as many climate units with positive effects for the climate as possible.
Summary
The book is about political communication in the field of climate, which combines high linguistic sensitivity with a tremendous wealth of experience that can only grow from years of involvement with the subject on the ground, e.g., in the rainforests of the world. The book provides great insights into the economic challenges of climate protection and the many difficulties that must be overcome in concrete projects. The reader is rewarded with numerous new insights and perspectives into a world that is of crucial importance for dealing with the climate and energy issue. The book also shows a way to perhaps avoid many of the paradoxes that have so far been effective in this field. The book is a great opportunity to expand one’s knowledge and to learn a lot. I recommend the book to all those interested in the subject and am certain that reading it will bring both knowledge and joy. It is worth taking the time to study the book thoroughly.
