TOPICS

BINGOs in search of REDDención

BINGOs in search of REDDención


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

By WRM

Today's pragmatism makes most governments and several large NGOs partner with the private sector and even with large corporations that have been and continue to be responsible for the destruction of forests. Thus, these polluters can easily buy their redemption, participating in REDD / REDD + projects.


The threat of climate change has increased, as has the insertion of financial markets in all fields of life, including climate change.

REDD is a false solution, both for deforestation and climate change, although it is useful for the carbon market, a new sophisticated and far-fetched financial market that trades carbon credits, generally used by polluters to offset their carbon emissions. carbon. This year, although the volume of transactions decreased by 22% compared to 2010, the carbon market doubled in value, reaching 237 million dollars. (one)

As part of the global financial architecture, the main benefits of REDD will go to financial agents. However, several institutions, large NGOs, multinationals and governments promote REDD as something very convenient for communities, which would end up obtaining some money to “compensate” for the negative impacts they bear.

REDD marketing was somewhat successful because some stakeholders gave credibility to the proposal. Large NGOs such as The Nature Conservancy, Conservation Inernational, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Forest Trends and the Rainforest Alliance are participating or supporting many REDD projects in Southern countries.

Its non-ecological partners - Alcoa, Arcelor Mittal, Barrick Gold, Grupo BG, BHP Billiton, Fundación BP, Bunge, Cargill, Chevron, Coca-Cola, Grupo De Beers, Giti Tire, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase & Co, Kimberly Clark, Kraft Foods, McDonald's, Grupo Medco, Monsanto, MPX Colombia, Newmont Mining Corporation, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Rio Tinto, Shell, The Walt Disney Company, Toyota Motor Corporation, United Airlines, Walmart, Wilmar International - urgently needed a touch of "green", and they got it.

In March 2010, the American magazine The Nation published an article by Johann Hari (2), who had investigated the financial links between environmental organizations and corporations hostile to the environment, mainly because it had been discovered that the important conservation organization The Nature Conservancy (TNC) had long established a very convenient relationship with the oil giant BP, with which the company had “made up its image green” and TNC had raised funds for its projects.

Hari wrote:

“Environmental organizations used to be financed mostly by their members and wealthy supporters. They had only one goal: to prevent environmental destruction. Their funds were scarce, but they served a very important function, helping to safeguard large areas and to enact strict rules prohibiting air and water pollution. But Jay Hair - president of the National Wildlife Federation from 1981 to 1995 - was not satisfied, and found a new source of enormous resources: the worst polluters.

Hair found that the big oil and gas companies were willing to give money to conservation organizations. Yes, they were destroying many intact places in the world. Yes, in the late 1980s it was clear that they were dramatically destabilizing the climate, the very foundation of life. But for Hair that didn't make them enemies, and he said that they sincerely wanted to make amends for their mistakes and pay to preserve the environment. He then began to extract millions from them and, in return, his organization and others such as The Nature Conservancy (TNC) awarded them ‘good environmental stewardship’ awards.

Companies such as Shell and British Petroleum (BP) were delighted as they saw this as valuable 'insurance against bad reputations' - whenever someone criticized them for their huge volume of greenhouse gas emissions, or for being involved in the murder of dissidents who wanted oil money to go to the local population, or because of an oil spill that had caused irreparable damage, displayed their gleaming awards for environmentalism, bought with 'charitable' donations, to avoid the risk of a government regulation. "

Today's pragmatism makes most governments and several large NGOs partner with the private sector and even with large corporations that have been and continue to be responsible for the destruction of forests. Thus, these polluters can easily buy their redemption, participating in REDD / REDD + projects.

Most of these projects are related to the carbon market, and imply that an economic value is placed on carbon and forests.

Conservation International announces that it is working “to encourage financing for REDD + and market-based initiatives to generate demand for carbon offsets from forests,” and is enthusiastic about carbon trading: “The emerging market Carbon offers one of the greatest opportunities in the last fifty years to reverse the destruction of the world's remaining tropical forests, by bringing buyers and sellers of carbon credits together ”. In fact, large NGOs vigorously promote the carbon market for offsetting emissions in general and for REDD in particular.

Conservation International is present in Africa, where it provides technical and financial support to REDD projects in DRC, Equatorial Guinea, Madagascar and Liberia. In Asia, it is behind forest carbon projects in China, the Philippines and Indonesia, and in Latin America it participates in projects in Ecuador, Peru, Brazil, Guatemala, Mexico and Colombia.

The very concept of conservation is inadequate. As Hari put it, “In this time of global warming, the old notion of conservation - which involves preserving an isolated patch of land intact - makes no sense whatsoever. If the biosphere is crumbling all over the place, you can't fence off an area of ​​lush vegetation to protect it: you're going to die anyway. "

On the other hand, carbon trading does not reduce emissions. Worse, it dangerously distracts attention from what needs to be done right away: actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels.

Unfortunately, a lot of money and effort is spent promoting bogus solutions, such as market-based REDD or REDD + projects. Its promoters should not forget that they bear the responsibility for this waste of time and money that exacerbates the current climate, social and biodiversity crisis.

Monthly Bulletin - Number 184 - November 2012
http://www.wrm.org.uy

(1) Leveraging the Landscape: State of the Forest Carbon Markets 2012, Ecosystem Marketplace.
(2) http://www.thenation.com/article/wrong-kind-green#
(3) “Democratic Republic of the Congo. Conservation International's REDD pilot project: an unprecedented Disney production ”, Belmond Tchoumba, WRM, 2011, http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Congo/REDD_DRC_sp.pdf


Video: Ricki robs the bingo halls (June 2022).


Comments:

  1. Kagor

    Well written, if in more detail, of course. Would be much better. But in any case, it is true.

  2. Kuno

    What a pleasant message

  3. Dikus

    This is such a mockery, right?

  4. Chayo

    Certainly. All above told the truth. Let's discuss this question.

  5. Arie

    License me from this.



Write a message