The Carbon and Biodiversity Credit Trading Catastrophe

Carbon and biodiversity credit trading, seen as solutions to climate change and biodiversity loss, are criticized by Indigenous communities, nonprofits, and environmental leaders for their potential to harm rights, biodiversity, and the resiliency of ecosystems. While these markets aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and advance environmental stewardship they allow countries and companies to support projects that merely offset their calamitous commercial choices, affording them a free pass to do as they have always done, often to the continued erosion of natural commons and marginalised communities.

Indigenous peoples' primary concern about carbon trading initiatives at COP29 is that these schemes risk precipitating land seizures, displacements from their ancestral homelands, and further infringements on their rights. All of this could occur under the pretence of climate action without sufficient measures to safeguard their interests and sovereignty over their lands. However, before we deliberate why we must shift away from credit-based markets for carbon and biodiversity (BCs) and highlight the disruptions these systems cause, we must comprehend why credit systems are enthusiastically promulgated by their proponents and who stands to benefit most from their contrivance in our world.

Carbon credits and biodiversity credits serve as market-driven mechanisms to foster sustainability. They are an economic hail-mary for the ecological haemorrhage caused by the relentless exploitation of nature for the sole benefit of a net gain. This framework allows various perpetrators of environmental, social and climate crimes to persist in their nefarious practices whilst claiming to care about the very resources, peoples, and places they denigrate in their very backyards. These are opportune methods that grant permission to corporations and governments worldwide to perpetuate their unscrupulous money-centric paradigm while asserting they harbor real conviction for doing good. Carbon and Biodiversity credits enable entities to commit to mitigating their adversarial impacts in their immediate context by investing in positive outcomes in a completely different region. They save trees and wildlife in a distant place, just so they can continue deforesting, polluting and evicting native peoples where they actually operate. It is a lazy, out-of-sight, out-of-mind, guns-and-butter model that exhibits the convenient negligence and guile typical of traditional profit-hungry and performance-obsessed economics.

Biodiversity credits claim to focus on incentivizing the protection and revitalization of natural ecosystems in ways that strategically divorce cause and consequence. By placing distance between the true reasons and responsible offenders for biodiversity loss, from earnest accountability. Carbon credits are utilized to curb or neutralize greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through offset projects that operate from the same disassociative pathology suffered by BCs. The two differ significantly in how they are quantified. Carbon credits are measured straightforwardly in terms of tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. In contrast, biodiversity credits lack a standardized unit of measurement.

Carbon offset projects can vary and are typically designed to counterbalance GHG emissions from various activities by reducing, absorbing or preventing the release of emissions elsewhere. Projects could entail developing and deploying renewable energy sources, reforestation, afforestation, avoidance of deforestation, energy efficiency and smart-technology measures, methane capture, and substituting industrial gases like HFCs, PFCs, and N20 with lower GWP (global warming potential) blends and alternatives. The veritable array of inimitable species and their interdependent relationships within various ecosystems are still being uncovered and documented by underfunded scientists; consequently, the hubris and ignorance embodied by advocates of Biodiversity Credits in coining a solution that sanctions the commodification of that which they do not understand is unforgivable. Attempting the impossible task of quantifying the intangible complexity of life on earth and appraising living sentient organisms, processes, and systems like day traded stocks, and subsequently bartering wild lives like they are baseball cards, evidences a disgraceful lack of awareness of humanity's own evolutionary and biological origins.

Biodiversity credits often fail to capture, verify and validate genuine biodiversity improvements accurately. This inaccuracy can facilitate "greenwashing," enabling companies to project a facade of ecological responsibility without significantly changing their operations footprint. Furthermore, the current lack of stringent standards complicates the assessment of the true impact of biodiversity credit projects. Instead of fostering positive environmental action, these credits can incentivize deleterious practices, potentially leading to an overall decrease in biodiversity. This system can be likened to granting a "license to degrade" and operates from the false assumption that life is expendable and interchangeable and that biodiversity loss in one area is equivalent to restoration elsewhere, which is invalid and imbalanced.

Life cannot be given a sticker price, and murdering living beings en masse results in a perpetual dismissal of the ecosystem services they provide. Perhaps because we are so enraptured by consumerism, our vocabulary is limited to enduring buyer's remorse when we acquire something, including a reality, we no longer care for, which is temporary and can usually be remanded by customer service, but this train of logic does not apply to nature. Nature does not issue returns, replacements, refunds and rebates on reality, as once its abundance has been pilfered, compromised or used, it cannot be resolved by customer service, a legal team, or an advertising budget. Nature promotes a reap-what-you-sow rationale, and all that biodiversity and carbon credits do is procrastinate the due date of when nature comes to collect on the consequences of all the loss incurred. All credit markets do is defer the burden of responsibilities to the next generation, and we wonder why the youth of today experience crippling eco-anxiety.

Other key issues underlying the inefficacy of biodiversity credits include the questionable additionality of conservation programmes. Not every project is incentivised by BCs, making it hard to discern the value-add of biodiversity credit projects to ongoing preservation efforts. Moreover, the absence of robust standards results in inconsistencies and unreliable evaluations of conservation initiatives. The capacity to comprehensively assess an environmental landscape for all its worth and value is not only lacking but impossible, making it hard to allocate corresponding credits for a conservation undertaking. Furthermore, entities may opt to purchase a reputation for sustainability without taking the necessary strides to implement tangible change, not to mention the substantial administrative costs associated with managing the credit markets directly diminishes financial resources available for direct conservation measures. Consequently, other options to achieve meaningful ecological protections, such as policy interventions, environmental regulations, engagement of local communities, direct investment, and increased accountability and transparency for environmental impact, should be prioritized.

Carbon trading markets can lead to dispossession and displacement of indigenous communities. Indigenous peoples often inhabit lands with rich biodiversity, frequently targeted for carbon offset projects, and they are expected to bear a disproportionate share of the risks and all the unpropitious effects of the effort. Indigenous communities may be forcibly removed to make way for these projects, losing their homes, livelihoods, and cultural ties to their land in the process. These communities' traditional knowledge—crucial for sustainable land management—can be disregarded and erased. Carbon credits are thus a false solution as they reductively commodify biodiverse lands to mere commercial assets that can be bought and sold in a noncommittal, symptom-alleviation capacity. After all, it does not make money to cure something; however, forcing everyone to cope endlessly can be remunerated at scale.

In addition to displacement, these markets often overlook the voices, votes, and rights of indigenous peoples. Projects are typically developed with minimal consultation or consent from local communities, violating principles of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) enshrined in international law. This exclusion perpetuates a colonial mindset, where corporate and governmental interests override indigenous sovereignty and self-determination. By neglecting to include Indigenous voices in the decision-making process, carbon trading markets not only harm people but also undermine efforts for genuinely sustainable and inclusive climate solutions.

Carbon trading can lead to ecological degradation rather than conservation due to its dilutive interpretation of the word 'nature.' Monoculture plantations, although beneficial in absorbing carbon, can reduce biodiversity by replacing diverse ecosystems with single-species landscapes, which degrades soil integrity. In some cases, these projects involve the establishment of large-scale monoculture plantations, such as pines in lines, eucalyptus or palm oil, which are chosen for their carbon absorption capabilities but also for the economic advantage they proffer. While this might seem like a win for carbon sequestration, the social and environmental costs can be dire. Such biodiversity loss can destabilize ecosystems, making them more vulnerable to pests, diseases, and changing climate conditions. Biodiverse ecosystems are more resilient and provide a broader range of ecosystem services, such as water purification, soil protection, and habitat for countless species—all crucial for climate adaptation. Therefore, an overreliance on monocultures for carbon offsets is counterproductive, prioritizing short-term carbon absorption over long-term ecological health.

In a sinister symmetry, Biodiversity Credits couldstep in to pick up the slack of Carbon Credits, hoodwinking people into buying more carbon credits that could easily use BCs to justify their ill-conceived articulation and vice versa. The commodification of nature through carbon credits can obscure the root causes of climate change and biodiversity loss. By placing a market value on natural processes, carbon trading shifts the focus from reducing emissions at the source to finding cheaper offsets. This perpetuates a "business-as-usual" approach, allowing significant polluters to continue high-emission practices while superficially adhering to climate commitments through purchased credits. Genuine climate action requires transformative changes in energy systems, consumption patterns, and economic structures—changes undermined by reliance on market mechanisms.

To address the shortcomings of carbon and biodiversity trading markets, we must pivot towards holistic strategies that centre on Indigenous rights and biodiversity protection. Policies should be grounded in ecological justice, recognizing the intrinsic value of nature beyond economic metrics. Solutions like community-managed conservation, support for indigenous land rights, and genuine reductions in carbon emissions from fossil fuel use can offer more equitable and effective paths toward sustainability.

In conclusion, concerns raised against carbon trading markets and biodiversity credits question their social justice, ecological, and climate effectiveness. Dispossession, displacement, and environmental harm must not be the price of apparent "green" actions. By respecting Indigenous knowledge and sovereignty, we can develop climate policies that genuinely protect people and the planet, moving beyond credit-based markets to ensure a sustainable future for diverse ecosystems and communities