Connect with us

Published

on

Every day, people are invited to buy products and services with supposed climate benefits – whether this be “carbon-neutral flights”, “net-zero beef” or “carbon-negative coffee”.

Such claims rely on “carbon offsets”.

Put simply, carbon offsets involve an entity that emits greenhouse gases into the atmosphere paying for another entity to pollute less.

For example, an airline in a developed country that wants to claim it is reducing its emissions can pay for a patch of rainforest to be protected in the Amazon. This – in theory – “cancels out” some of the airline’s pollution.

It is not just businesses that are relying on carbon offsets. Major economies, too, are investing in carbon offsets as a way to meet their international emissions targets – with offsetting becoming a major talking point at UN climate negotiations.

For its supporters, offsetting is a mutually beneficial system that funnels billions of dollars into emissions-cutting projects in developing countries, such as renewable energy projects or clean cooking initiatives.

But offsetting has also faced intense scrutiny from researchers, the media and – increasingly – law courts, with businesses facing accusations of “greenwashing” over their carbon-offsetting claims.

There is mounting evidence that offset projects, from clean-cooking initiatives to forest protection schemes, have been overstating their ability to cut emissions. One yet-to-be published study suggests that just 12% of offsets being sold result in “real emissions reductions”.

Projects have also been linked to Indigenous people being forced from their land and other human rights abuses.

Decades of countries trading carbon offsets has had a negligible impact on emissions and likely even increased them.

In this in-depth Q&A, Carbon Brief explains what offsets are, how they are being used by businesses and nations, and why they can be a problematic climate solution.

The article also explores whether a system, which one expert describes as “deeply broken”, could ever be effectively reformed.

Read the full article on the Carbon Brief website

The post In-depth Q&A: Can ‘carbon offsets’ help to tackle climate change? appeared first on Carbon Brief.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qampa-can-carbon-offsets-help-to-tackle-climate-change/

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Low-Producing Oil Wells in Texas Cause Headaches for Landowners

Published

on

Jackie Chesnutt, who lives outside San Angelo, is tired of pollution from wells she says should have been plugged years ago. Experts say Texas rules allow companies to defer plugging wells for far too long.

Reporting for this story was supported by a grant from the Fund for Investigative Journalism.

Low-Producing Oil Wells in Texas Cause Headaches for Landowners

Continue Reading

Climate Change

America’s Dirty Secret

Published

on

An interview with author Catherine Coleman Flowers.

The fourth installment in our special Earth Day series

America’s Dirty Secret

Continue Reading

Climate Change

With love: Love to the researchers

Published

on

Greenpeace activists investigate the consequences of the severe explosions at the Nord Stream Pipelines. © Gregor Fischer / Greenpeace

When the sciences and the humanities; democracy and ecology, are all under common and increasing attack, the efforts of independent experts and researchers matter more than ever.

David Ritter

So often in life, our most authentic moments of joy are the result of years of shared effort, and the culmination of a kind of deep faith in what is possible.

A few weeks ago, I had the honour of being in Canberra, along with some fellow environmentalists and scientists, to witness the enactment of the High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026 by our federal parliament.

This was the moment that the Global Ocean Treaty—one of the most significant environmental agreements of our time—was given force through a domestic Australian law

If you are part of the great Greenpeace family, you will know exactly why this was such a huge deal. The high seas make up around 60 per cent of the Earth’s surface and for too long, they have been subjected to open plunder. Now, for the first time in human history, there is an international instrument that enables the creation of massive high seas sanctuaries within which the ocean can be protected. This is a monumental collective achievement by Greenpeace and all the other groups who have campaigned for high seas marine sanctuaries for many years.

But as momentous as the ratification was, the parliamentary proceedings were distinctly lacking in drama or fanfare–so much so, that Labor MP backbencher Renee Coffey felt the need to gesture to those of us in the gallery with a grin, to indicate that the process was over and done.

The modesty of the moment had me thinking about the decades of quiet dedication by many hands that are invariably required to achieve great social change. In particular, I found myself thinking about researchers. So much of the expert academic work that underpins achievements like the Global Ocean Treaty is slow, painstaking, solitary—and often out of sight.

I think of the persistence and tenacity of researchers as an expression of love, founded in an authentic sense of wonder and curiosity about the world—and frequently linked to a deep ethical desire to protect that source of wonderment.

Crew operates underwater drone to document Woodside’s sunken oil tower. © Greenpeace

In 2007, one of the very first things I was given to read after starting with Greenpeace as an oceans campaigner in London was a report entitled Roadmap to Recovery: A global network of marine reserves. Specific physical sensations can tend to stick in the mind from periods of personally significant transitions, and the tactile reminiscence of holding the thin cardboard of the modest grey cover of that report is deeply embedded in my memory. I suspect I still even have that original copy in a box somewhere.

Written by a team of scientists led by Professor Callum Roberts, a marine conservation biologist from the University of York, the Roadmap provided the first scientifically informed vision of a large-scale global network of high seas marine sanctuaries, protecting the world’s oceans at scale. Of course, twenty years ago, this idea felt more like utopian science fiction, because there was no Global Oceans Treaty. But what seemed fanciful at the start of this century is now possible-–and I have every confidence the creation of large scale high seas marine sanctuaries will now happen through the application of ongoing campaigning effort—but we would never have gotten this far without the dedication of researchers, driven by their love of the oceans. And now here we are, with the ability for humanity to legally protect the high seas for the first time.

Campaigning and research so often work hand in hand like this: the one identifying the need and the solutions; the other driving the change. Because in a world of powerful vested interests, good science alone doesn’t shift decision makers—that takes activism and campaigning—but equally, there must be a basis of evidence and reason on which to build our public advocacy.

So, I want to take a moment to think with love and appreciation for everyone who has contributed to making this possible. I’ve never met the team of scientists who authored the original Roadmap, so belatedly but sincerely, then, to Leanne Mason, Julie P. Hawkins, Elizabeth Masden, Gwilym Rowlands, Jenny Storey and Anna Swift—and to every other researcher and scientist who has been involved in demonstrating why the Global Oceans Treaty has been so badly needed over the years—thank you for your commitment and devotion.

And to everyone out there who continues to believe that evidence and truth matter, and that our magnificent, fragile world deserves our respectful curiosity and study as an expression of our awe and enchantment, thank you for your conscientiousness.

When the sciences and the humanities; democracy and ecology, are all under common and increasing attack, the efforts of independent experts and researchers matter more than ever. You have Greenpeace’s deepest gratitude. Every day, we build on the foundations of your work and dedication. Thank you. 


Q & A

I have been asked several times in recent weeks what the ongoing war means for the renewable energy transition in Australia.

While some corners of the fossil fuel lobby and the politicians captured by these vested interests have been very quick to use this crisis to call for more oil exploration and gas pipelines, the reality is that the current energy crisis has revealed the commonsense case for renewable energy

As many, including climate and energy minister Chris Bowen have noted, renewable energy is affordable, inexhaustible, and sovereign—its supply cannot be blocked by warmongers or conflict. People intuitively know this; it’s why sales of electric cars have climbed to an all-time high, it’s why interest in rooftop solar and batteries has skyrocketed in recent months.

The reality is that oil and gas are to blame for much of the cost-of-living pain we’re feeling right now; fossil fuels are the disease, not the cure. If Australia were further along in our renewable energy transition and EV uptake, we would be much better insulated from petrol and gas price shocks and supply chain disruptions.

Yes, we need short-term solutions to ease the very real cost-of-living pressures that Australian communities and workers are facing as a result of fuel shortages. While replacement supplies is no doubt a valid step for now—Greenpeace is also backing taxes on the war profits of gas corporations to fund relief measures for Australians—in the long term, we will only get off the rollercoaster of fossil fuel dependency and price volatility if we break free from fossil fuels and accelerate progress towards an energy system built on 100% renewable energy, backed by storage.

With love: Love to the researchers

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com