· 2 min read
In this series, illuminem and carbonparadox share 24 carbon paradoxes that demand our attention and discussion. Each one highlights a tension we must address to improve the way we value and protect our planet.
A paradox that has puzzled forest advocates from the start: You can only earn carbon credits from forestry projects if you restore degraded trees or protect threatened ones.
This means you can’t earn credits unless there has been deforestation in the past – or there is a clear threat of deforestation now.
And here is the paradox: Countries and communities that have been the most effective stewards of the land get no carbon credits for their past “good” behaviour, while countries and communities that chopped their forests can point to their “bad” behaviour as proof of danger.
In other words: If you chopped your forest in the past or threaten to do so in the future, you qualify for carbon credits. If not, you have no “baseline” and don’t qualify.
It’s a sticky one. Nobody will disagree that we urgently need funding to help forested countries restore and protect their habitats.
How to solve this paradox?
This article is also published on carbonparadox.org. 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.
