New York City (April 30, 2024) – In a historic first, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples and Amnesty International joined Indigenous Peoples in denouncing carbon markets and their human rights violations, which include the International Monetary Fund putting whales into the carbon market. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples Francisco Cali Tzay agreed that a “moratorium […]
Carbon markets have recently begun expanding into oceans. Since whales’ bodies temporarily absorb carbon dioxide, the International Monetary Fund … contends that whales can generate carbon credits and are “Nature’s solutions to climate change.”
Interesting idea. I would say that the problem isn’t counting whales in this. The carbon credits are probably too cheap, and who is getting the money? If each whale generated a billion dollars a year for a tribe, I’m sure they would have less of a problem with it.
Wouldn’t this encourage supporting the whale population? Isn’t this generally a good thing? How does this hurt the whale?
Wouldn’t this encourage supporting the whale population? Isn’t this generally a good thing? How does this hurt the whale?
I suppose the answers to those questions depend on how you see the (Carbon) Markets and the International Monetary Fund, since the text in question was written by the IMF.
If one trusts the system (capitalim), they most probably consider this as a good thing, that perhaps needs some tweaking to become even better.
Personally I don’t see how we can achieve sustainability when the system in place (capitalim) is based on the principle of the eternal growth. Should we trust in good faith that the polluters will provide the solutions to he problem they created even tho they don’t seem to want to change their principles? Let’s not forget they lobby for maintaining their profits, not to save the planet, humans, whales or any lifeforms. For me the answer is definitely: No.
Interesting idea. I would say that the problem isn’t counting whales in this. The carbon credits are probably too cheap, and who is getting the money? If each whale generated a billion dollars a year for a tribe, I’m sure they would have less of a problem with it.
Wouldn’t this encourage supporting the whale population? Isn’t this generally a good thing? How does this hurt the whale?
I suppose the answers to those questions depend on how you see the (Carbon) Markets and the International Monetary Fund, since the text in question was written by the IMF.
If one trusts the system (capitalim), they most probably consider this as a good thing, that perhaps needs some tweaking to become even better.
Personally I don’t see how we can achieve sustainability when the system in place (capitalim) is based on the principle of the eternal growth. Should we trust in good faith that the polluters will provide the solutions to he problem they created even tho they don’t seem to want to change their principles? Let’s not forget they lobby for maintaining their profits, not to save the planet, humans, whales or any lifeforms. For me the answer is definitely: No.
Sustainability and eternal growth cannot coexist.