Carbon Credits Ethical
Carbon credits are unique financial permits that allow businesses to emit greenhouse gases while paying for the reduction of those emissions elsewhere. As a result, they can help offset a company’s total emissions in the face of governmental or regulatory efforts to reduce those emissions. Ambitious companies, individuals and organizations may even purchase carbon credits to reach net zero emissions or nullify their previous emissions. However, there are many issues with the use of carbon credits that can make them unethical.
The most obvious problem with carbon credits is that they don’t address the root cause of the issue — emissions. They merely allow a polluter to buy its way out of penalties for exceeding its purchased permit levels, and they’re not even always well-regulated. In fact, the market for carbon.credit is rife with corruption and a lack of transparency, with consultants, brokers and NGOs raking in billions in profits.
Another major problem with carbon credits is that they commodify pollution as opposed to reducing it. This can lead to a host of environmental problems, including overstating or understating carbon emissions and the use of land for carbon sequestration that is not appropriate or sustainable in the long run. As a result, companies are more likely to use these credits as an excuse to continue to pollute than to change their behavior.
Are Carbon Credits Ethical?
The fact that a company can earn money from its carbon credits is also unethical. In a voluntary climate action marketplace, companies that have committed to reduce their emissions but still produce more than they can eliminate may buy carbon credits from other projects to neutralize those excess emissions. While this is better than a command-and-control solution, it still allows companies to avoid reducing their emissions directly.
Proponents of carbon credit schemes argue that they lead to measurable and verifiable reductions from certified climate action projects, or CCAs. These include initiatives such as the Gold Standard, which focuses on forest and peatland carbon sequestration; and the Woodland Carbon Code and the Peatland Code, which certify CCAs that involve planting trees or restoring peat bogs. However, academic studies have found that many of these programs are not delivering the claimed carbon savings.
One more major issue with carbon trading is that it allows businesses in rich countries to continue polluting without penalty, while paying a pittance for the right to do so. This echoes the centuries-old pattern of wealthy nations buying the right to pollute in poorer countries, a practice that often results in those citizens suffering through loss of income, health and even their lives.
For these reasons, it is important for businesses considering the use of carbon credits to carefully review any potential impact issues and ensure that they are using the highest quality standards. This will help prevent the exploitation of these projects and ensure that they provide genuine environmental benefits. Additionally, any contracts involving property that might someday be used for a carbon credit project should clearly define the rights of all parties involved.