carbonparadox

𝗗𝗮𝘆 𝟮𝟰 - 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗼𝘅 ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ Christmas is all about hope and expectations for good things to happen. Hence, as we wrap up this series, our last paradox deals with expectations. Carbon credits were created for two purposes. First and foremost, they are here to finance greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Second, they shall promote sustainable development in the host countries. When buying carbon credits from a community-based project, such as efficient cookstoves, regenerative agriculture or forest restoration, our hopes and expectations are high: The carbon credits shall help make the world fairer and more equitable. However, when tackling specific challenges, these projects often highlight other inequalities and unresolved issues. For example, a clean cookstove program may reduce indoor air pollution and alleviate pressure on dwindling forests. Yet, it cannot address other, potentially more urgent problems such as lack of education, health challenges, gender inequalities, or widespread poverty. Buyer’s expectations can quickly turn to disappointment upon realizing that, despite the supported project, local communities continue to live in poverty, and several pressing issues remain unsolved. Paradoxically, by tackling one problem, these initiatives risk criticism for not addressing others—issues that may have gone unnoticed without the project’s spotlight. We hope you enjoyed the paradoxes and got some inspiration to address and solve as many of them as possible. Our expectation and hope are that you continue exploring these paradoxes - may we address and solve as many of them as possible next year. 𝕄𝕖𝕣𝕣𝕪 ℂ𝕙𝕣𝕚𝕤𝕥𝕞𝕒𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 ℍ𝕒𝕡𝕡𝕪 ℕ𝕖𝕨 𝕐𝕖𝕒𝕣! ---------------------------------------------- 📖 This December, we unwrapped 24 paradoxes that challenge our thinking about carbon credits and climate action. Each day, we explored a new puzzle from Renat Heuberger and Steve Zwick's upcoming book about carbon credits. Join us on this journey to rethink the world’s most promising yet paradoxical tool for saving the planet. ➕ You can find all previous paradoxes here: carbonparadox #carbonmarket #vcm #carboncredits

𝗗𝗮𝘆 𝟮𝟯 - 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗼𝘅 🎄 Christmas is around the corner, and just like every year, we spend a lot of money on electronic gadgets, meat, clothes, and more. The voluntary carbon market has a total size of less than two billion USD. The global market for electronic gadgets is around 500 times bigger. The global meat market is more than 700 times bigger. The clothes market is 900 times bigger. (Not to mention the global fossil fuels market, which is more than 3000 times bigger.) Many of these massive markets wreak havoc on the planet. But while people tend to shrug off the damage caused, the relatively tiny market for carbon credits, designed to help the planet, gets slammed. Why? It’s the size paradox. As long as a market is tiny, nobody cares. In the decade between 2010 and 2020, the voluntary carbon market size stayed within half a billion, hardly growing. Critical voices were scarce. When a market grows, it gets noticed and sparks the interest of analysts and journalists. Once a market is large, it gets properly regulated. Governments set clear standards to address their paradoxes. Since the economic interest of market participants is high, a lot of money is invested in seasoned lobbyists and polished PR teams. Carbon credits, by contrast, are stuck between small and large size. The market has become large enough to excite the public - but it is still way too small for serious investments in proper regulation and seasoned PR professionals to defend it. How do we break this paradox and give carbon credits the structure they need to grow responsibly? ------------------------------ 📖 This December, we’re unwrapping 24 paradoxes that challenge our thinking about carbon credits and climate action. Each day, we’ll explore a new puzzle from Renat Heuberger and Steve Zwick's upcoming book about carbon credits. Join us on this journey to rethink the world’s most promising yet paradoxical tool for saving the planet. ➕ You can find all previous paradoxes here: carbonparadox #carbonmarket #VCM #carboncredits

𝗗𝗮𝘆 𝟮𝟮 - 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗼𝘅 💸 Still looking for last Christmas presents? If so, you might follow the classic rule: the higher the price, the better the quality. But when it comes to carbon credits, we are not buying presents; we are trying to save the climate. Here, it should be the other way around: Conventional wisdom suggests that to maximize climate impact, you should aim for the lowest-cost emission reductions—reducing more CO₂ for the same budget. Economic theory further suggests that prices should rise as demand for carbon credits increases. As inexpensive emission reduction options gradually become scarce, you’d expect people to shift to more costly solutions, eventually funding even the most expensive projects. Yet, paradoxically, reality doesn’t follow this logic. Instead, the “Chrismas present” rule appears to apply. Some people view low-cost carbon credits with skepticism, suggesting low prices signal low quality, opening doors for greenwashing. Adding to the irony, this criticism reduces demand for carbon credits, lowering prices further as project owners scramble to recoup their investments. And the irony goes on: Some of the priciest carbon credits are considered "best quality," but their high costs make it hard for buyers to offset all emissions. As a result, many abandon their offsetting ambition, leading to fewer emission reductions. So what to do when people dislike both inexpensive (“low quality!”) and expensive (“too costly!”) credits? --------------------------------- 📖 This December, we’re unwrapping 24 paradoxes that challenge our thinking about carbon credits and climate action. Each day, we’ll explore a new puzzle from Renat Heuberger and Steve Zwick's upcoming book about carbon credits. Join us on this journey to rethink the world’s most promising yet paradoxical tool for saving the planet. ➕ You can find all previous paradoxes here: carbonparadox #carboncredits #carbonmarket #carbonpricing #sustainability

𝗗𝗮𝘆 𝟮𝟭 - 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗼𝘅 👁️ Everyone agrees that transparency is a cornerstone of any carbon credit project. In fact, “transparency and integrity” has emerged as the battle cry of anybody active in the carbon markets. 🌀 𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲’𝘀 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝘄𝗶𝘀𝘁: Projects registered under the large carbon standards are already documented with remarkable transparency–especially when compared to traditional development finance projects or donation-driven philanthropic efforts. All financial and technical documents are publicly accessible through the carbon registry. So why are these projects so often criticized for lacking transparency? 🤔 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗼𝘅𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆, it’s because the more transparent a project, the more vulnerable it becomes to criticism–both constructive and destructive. Providing extensive data invites detailed scrutiny, increasing the chances of critics finding—or spotlighting—imperfections or controversies.. Adding to the paradox, the deeper one probes into a project’s workings, the more new questions arise—ironically leading to additional claims that transparency is still insufficient. How to address the Transparency Paradox? How to ensure that the genuine intention to be fully transparent does not backfire and invite critical voices to deliberately seek for an imperfection while projects that are intransparent fly below the radar screen? And did we mention that transparency is of utmost importance for the success of carbon markets? ----------------------------- 📖 This December, we’re unwrapping 24 paradoxes that challenge our thinking about carbon credits and climate action. Each day, we’ll explore a new puzzle from Renat Heuberger and Steve Zwick's upcoming book about carbon credits. Join us on this journey to rethink the world’s most promising yet paradoxical tool for saving the planet. ➕ You can find all previous paradoxes here: carbonparadox #carboncredits #carbonmarket #VCM #CDR

𝗗𝗮𝘆 𝟮𝟬 - 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗼𝘅 🌿 We are approaching Christmas, which marks the end of this paradoxes series. But before lighting the candles, we must tackle several particularly twisted and intriguing paradoxes. Today, we explore the Nature Paradox, a riddle wrapped in bark and rooted in the soil of the mid-1970s, when scientists first asked if we could use trees to slow climate change. The premise sounds simple. Trees grow, and as they do, they inhale carbon, exhale oxygen, and store carbon. If you plant new trees, you’re absorbing carbon in the tree and in the soil. But trees don’t grow forever. At some point, forests mature and no longer absorb carbon. Carbon credits for afforestation and reforestation are only issued while the trees are growing and actively removing more carbon than they emit. You don't get credits for storing the carbon after that. Once a forest is fully grown, carbon funding for ongoing management dries up—unless you can demonstrate that the forest is at risk of being cut down.  In such cases, you could claim carbon credits for “avoiding deforestation”. 🌀 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗮 𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗼𝘅: to secure ongoing financial support through carbon credits, a mature forest must be at risk of deforestation. Yet the goal of forest restoration is to eliminate that very risk! How do we resolve this paradox? Should carbon credits even be the tool we rely on for nature conservation and restoration? Or is it time to rethink our approach? Could a new mechanism—perhaps a "conservation credit"—better align with the realities of nature’s permanence, rewarding the ongoing protection of ecosystems regardless of carbon flux? But then again, carbon credits are thus far the only climate finance tool that ever reached scale - how to use this instrument in the best way to boost nature-based solutions? --------------------- 📖 This December, we’re unwrapping 24 paradoxes that challenge our thinking about carbon credits and climate action. Each day, we’ll explore a new puzzle from Renat Heuberger and Steve Zwick's upcoming book about carbon credits. Join us on this journey to rethink the world’s most promising yet paradoxical tool for saving the planet. ➕ You can find all previous paradoxes here: carbonparadox #naturebasedsolutions #ecosystems #carbonmarket

𝗗𝗮𝘆 𝟭𝟵 - 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗱𝗲𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗼𝘅 💭 How is it possible that climate campaigners and fossil fuels lobbyists sometimes form alliances to bring down pragmatic climate action? This is the paradox we explore today. Climate action has a deep ideological divide: one side argues for urgent, drastic measures, while the other fears that aggressive climate policies could harm economic growth. Paradoxically, these opposing camps can form an unlikely alliance: They reject moderate, practical strategies, insisting that only sweeping global systems change can address climate change. Some climate activists believe pragmatic steps are a distraction and don’t go far enough. Fossil fuel lobbyists wager that such radical systemic change is unlikely to occur, deeming it politically unfeasible in any country. They gladly use the “systems” argument to dodge the cost of incremental action. The result? Even modest, achievable steps get bogged down in endless debate and often don’t happen at all. 🌀 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗼𝘅? How to find majorities for concrete climate action that gets attacked as “too little!” or “too much!”, depending on ideology?

𝗗𝗮𝘆 𝟭𝟴 - 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗿𝗼𝘄𝗱𝘀 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗼𝘅 🧑 The power of large groups to influence society is typically impressive: whether in music, sports, protests, or celebrations, crowds often amplify impact. Have you ever participated in a “critical mass” bicycle parade when thousands of bikers flock to the streets, singing and dinging? You know what we are talking about; crowds can be very powerful. However, in the climate movement, this dynamic paradoxically works in reverse. While everyone in this diverse global coalition agrees on the urgency of climate action, the sheer diversity of viewpoints on the best strategies splinters the movement’s unity and can dilute its effectiveness. As a result, unified calls for action deteriorate into ideological debates. The “climate crowd” gets larger and larger, but it appears that, hampered by ongoing infighting, the growth of the crowd makes it less and less powerful. How can we bridge gaps? How can we reduce the notorious infighting within the sustainability community? ------------------------------- 📖 This December, we’re unwrapping 24 paradoxes that challenge our thinking about carbon credits and climate action. Each day, we’ll explore a new puzzle from Renat Heuberger and Steve Zwick's upcoming book about carbon credits. Join us on this journey to rethink the world’s most promising yet paradoxical tool for saving the planet. ➕ You can find all previous paradoxes here: carbonparadox #carbonmarket #cdr #decarbonization #illuminem #carbonparadox

Day 17: The Novelty Paradox Join the discussion here: https://lnkd.in/g2ZQHcQg

𝗗𝗮𝘆 𝟭𝟲 - 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗼𝘅 🛑 This is one of the 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 local authorities, which can be perceived as paternalistic or even neo-colonial. How to address the control paradox? ------------------------------- 📖 This December, we’re unwrapping 24 paradoxes that challenge our thinking about carbon credits and climate action. Each day, we’ll explore a new puzzle from Renat Heuberger and Steve Zwick's upcoming book about carbon credits. Join us on this journey to rethink the world’s most promising yet paradoxical tool for saving the planet. ➕ You can find all previous paradoxes here: carbonparadox #carbonemissions #decarbonization #VCM #carbonmarket

Day 15: The Standards Paradox This paradox has been illustrated best by XKCD: https://xkcd.com/927/ Join the discussion on https://lnkd.in/gtxdGxuY