'We just want our land back'

Carbon offsets and human rights

Posted by Julia Olmstead (Guest Contributor) at 11:01 AM on 12 Jan 2007

More evidence was released today demonstrating the complexity and oxymoronic nature of "ethical capitalism." This time it has to do with carbon offsets.

According to "A funny place to store carbon," a report issued today by the World Rainforest Movement, villagers living along the edges of Mount Elgon National Park in east Uganda, the site of a Dutch-owned carbon offset project, have been beaten, shot at, and repeatedly denied access to their land by armed park rangers guarding the "carbon trees" inside the park.

The FACE (Forest Absorbing Carbon-dioxide Emissions) Foundation's carbon credits are sold to European offset companies with clients that include Amnesty International and the Body Shop.

I mean really, whether it's carbon offsets, biofuels, coal-to-liquid, whatever, how long will we continue to think that we can buy our way out of this mess? The cost of our refusal to make actual changes to our lifestyles is beyond our imagining.

For story: 'We just want our land back'
3 Comments | Post a Comment

Thanks!!!

Very interesting news. I wonder if many of the advocates of carbon offsets will even notice, or bother to respond. Alas, it is not clear that many people would care if the government shot all of the protestors. It would be ironic if selling offsets becomes just as profitable and just as problematic as the industry it claims to be atoning for (oil).

patrick

by bookerly at 2:28 AM on 13 Jan 2007

It doesn't surprise me

that native peoples are being forced to pay for our excesses and greed. And how ironic when logging proceeds at an incredible pace right here at home. Literally. The landowner next door to me is cutting every tree from his property, from the smallest sapling to huge grandmother maples. Nobody is worrying about those "carbon trees".

by SMLowry at 4:21 PM on 15 Jan 2007

"native peoples"

This is a hugely complex story, ethically. Ever since I first learned of the carbon-offset business, it struck me as a scam-o-rama opportunity.

We should ask two kinds of questions, on different levels.

First, why has it been so hard to get international transparency, standardization and certification for carbon-offset offers? My feeling is, most people making these offers are fairly trustworthy thus far. But, on the other hand, the idea is really too good to waste on sloppiness. E.g., Why should the idea be allowed to be damaged by the unpleasantness in Uganda which Julia Olmstead mentions?

FYI, regarding native peoples, the backpage of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," i.e. the book, says:
<<
This is the first book produced to offset 100% of the CO2 emissions generated from production activities with renewable energy. By supporting a new Native American wind farm and a new family farm methane energy project through NativeEnergy, this publication is carbon neutral. For more information, and to offset your own carbon footprint, visit www.nativeenergy.com.
>>

Secondly, more deeply, in Julia's words, "why do we continue to think that we can buy our way out of this mess?"

I have no answer to that question. Certain green economists, and wonkish types like Al Gore, presumably know what enlightened green buying is all about. Still, there is a definite sense, however irrational, that "buying," throwing money around, cannot be the answer.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 1:54 AM on 16 Jan 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.