CBD COP16 Side Events: Can Biodiversity Be Neutralized? Can Carbon Be Neutralized? | CBCGDF OceanWetlands Reports
First of all, the author makes it clear that the views and discussions involved below do not represent the views of the China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation (CBCGDF) and the OceanWetlands platform, nor can they fully represent the views of academia and the industry. It is only for readers' understanding and reference, hoping to promote thinking and discussion, and find a better and more feasible way to conserve biodiversity.
CBCGDF delegates attended the two side events on the first day of COP16 on October 21. Both side events were held in the form of seminars, and some of the speakers at the seminars overlapped.
The two side events are:Business, Biodiversity and Finance: Peace of Conflict with Nature? Biodiversity Offsets and Credits: examining risks and challenges. Both side events were held in the form of a symposium, with some overlapping speakers, mainly discussing (or criticizing) carbon offset and biodiversity offset projects.
The symposium mainly put forward the view that carbon offset and biodiversity offset are "false solutions". They seem to solve the problem, but in fact they do not really solve the core problem, and may even cause more problems.
Reasons for carbon offset:
1. Time lag: Emissions are completed in a very short time, but the carbon absorption of many projects needs to be completed in a long period of time, such as afforestation projects.
2. Phantom credits: Carbon credits without actual carbon reduction or carbon capture effects.
Reasons for biodiversity offset:
1. Unquantifiable: There is no internationally recognized quantitative method that can be applied to biodiversity offset. The underlying logic is that biodiversity cannot be offset at all. After a habitat is destroyed or fragmented, all the organisms on it need to be moved to another place, or grow another one in another place. But this is obviously not feasible and unrealistic, and the adaptability of organisms is not the same.
2. No more land for biodiversity offset: 75% of the world's land has been changed by humans, and there is no way to compromise on land use for agriculture, industry, cities, etc.
Not taking into account the demands of local residents is a big problem shared by carbon offsets and biodiversity offsets.
In addition, some speakers at the symposium unanimously proposed that the real solution should abandon "market means" and allow investors (governments, companies, institutions, individuals, etc.) to invest directly in projects that protect the natural environment and restore ecosystems. In other words, funds should be given directly to non-governmental organizations or local residents doing projects, without going through any middlemen or middlemen (non-marketization).One of the speakers particularly pointed out that the second and fourth points of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement should be deleted. Only the eighth point of the "non-market" mechanism should be retained.
Original article:https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/yDoUL-9ycSjMGTM119gt4g
Translator: Daisy
Checked by Sara
Editor: Daisy
Contact: v10@cbcgdf.org; +8617319454776
Do you know? We rely on crowdfunding and donations. You have the opportunity to help an international movement to advance biodiversity conservation. Donate TODAY to power up the movement to make it a better world for all life.
Donation(501C3)Paypal: intl@wbag.org
https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=2EYYJJZ8CGPLE
Comments
Post a Comment