You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
5 points

Do they even promise it will benefit local populations? The issue is that even if they are good projects from a viewpoint of carbon (which the companies argue), the global north is still ofsetting their emissions in the global south. Large swathes of land are reserved by these companies, with little or no benefit to the local population, only so they can keep their business models afloat in the western world. It’s just yet another form of neocolonialism.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

For sure! Those promises aren’t exactly binding, and they probably came up with excuses at the same time, and there aren’t any serious consequences to fucking it up so long as voters in their home country stop paying attention quickly enough(and they’re conservatives and centrists mostly so practically by definition they aren’t even paying attention in the first place).

permalink
report
parent
reply

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

!climate@slrpnk.net

Create post

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

Community stats

  • 3.8K

    Monthly active users

  • 6K

    Posts

  • 28K

    Comments

Community moderators