By Yemi Olakitan
A new research by the climate think tank Power Shift Africa and collaborators outlines the risks of carbon credits and explains why African leaders must not fall into the trap of adopting them on the continent when the African Climate Summit, held from September 4 to 6, 2023 in Nairobi, Kenya, comes to a close.
The Rockefeller Foundation and others have been accused of being hell-bent on pushing the carbon markets agenda from the beginning, according to report author and Director of Power Shift Africa Mohamed Adow.
On Monday, September 4, hundreds of millions of dollars, including $450 million from the UAE Carbon Alliance, were committed to increasing Africa’s carbon credit production 19-fold by 2030.
Britain ($62 million), Germany ($65 million), and Climate Asset Management ($200 million) are among countries that have made financial commitments for carbon projects.
With claims that it will be the magic solution to Africa’s climate hardship, the African Carbon Market Initiative (ACMI) is believed to be the most recent carbon credit programme being promoted by a motley crew of politicians, businessmen, and some philanthropists.
However, the analysis by African climate specialists reveals that the programme is filled with flaws and contradictions and will simply unleash a torrent of pollution by governments and businesses in the Global North while generating outrageous profits for carbon credit financiers.
Instead, the report suggests a number of climate action alternatives to the leaders to ensure that the climate catastrophe is actually addressed. These alternatives are supported by scientific facts and professional analysis.
The paper contends that a carbon market is incorrect since a portion of the money paid by businesses for these carbon credits, which the authors refer to as “permits to pollute,” would fund development initiatives in Africa that avoid or decrease emissions.
However, the report’s authors point out that in practise, polluting businesses in wealthy nations purchase shady pollution permits rather than reducing their emissions.
Director of Power Shift Africa and report author Mohamed Adow said: “For wealthy polluters, this is a panacea and a painkiller that permits them to continue pouring greenhouse gases into the environment. However, they serve as a placebo in Africa, making the pain of climate change much worse.
“Africa has such great potential to lead the response to the climate crisis caused by wealthy nations,” Mohamed continued. Our young population will benefit from climate-friendly growth, and we have a wealth of clean, renewable resources as well as some forward-thinking leaders.
The carbon market initiative is an answer to someone else’s issue that has been packaged once more to deceive us. There are practical solutions available, and we must accept them.
“Delta Airlines, for example, personifies the foolishness of carbon markets. Due in part to the annual purchase of tens of millions of carbon credits, they claimed to be carbon neutral. They continue to run 4,000 flights each day in the interim.
According to the analysis, private enterprises would be free to emit up to 2.5 billion tonnes more carbon annually by 2050 in exchange for the pollution permits they have paid for if the African Carbon Market Initiative achieved its stated goal. As a result, pollution will increase beyond what our world and its climate can bear.
The writers have also challenged African politicians who are being courted by the initiative to follow the money and question who the program’s true beneficiaries are. In truth, just two parties gain the most from carbon markets.
The first is the fossil fuel industry, which sees its product as legitimated since polluters can keep burning it by paying for pollution licences. Without these permissions, coal, oil, and gas would be on the verge of extinction.
However, the analysis demonstrates that oil and gas firms will continue to make money and pollute for years to come with these licences.
The merchants of carbon credits are another group that stands to gain significantly. According to one study, some brokers charge the project that created the credits three times as much when selling the credits. A market that purports to be worth $100 may instead be the result of ten transactions with a single $10 credit.
The authors caution that African nations will be bitterly let down if the real flow of funds is far less than the market value they were promised.
The research emphasises that African leaders should take charge of the discussions about how to finance the continent’s resolute response to the climate problem rather than succumbing to the claims of the proponents of carbon credits.
In a setting where Africa determines its own needs, the paper suggests a new “polluter pays” funding structure in which polluting companies contribute funds to climate mitigation and adaptation. To encourage businesses to adhere to the Paris Agreement’s restrictions, the amount they pay would gradually rise.
The funding would also increase Africa’s capacity for local community-led, sustainable, and affordable development. Importantly, according to the research, it would do away with market intermediaries and brokers in order to boost funding for projects.
Africans Rising, the Africa Coal Network (ACN), 350 Africa, Muslims for Human Rights (MUHURI), Climate Action Network International (CAN), and the Africa, Water Justice Network have all approved the report.
The endorsers urge the African Climate Summit participants to stop participating in and showing any interest in the ACMI and all other carbon market systems.
Africans Rising’s Movement Coordinator, Hardi Yakubu, continued, “Embracing carbon markets at the expense of persistent calls for climate funding from those responsible for the climatic destruction of the African people, economies, and environment is, therefore, to betray the continent. In terms of the climate problem, the world has reached a turning point that does not allow for the fantasy of offsets.
As quickly as practicable, polluters must strive for “real zero” emissions rather than “net zero.” Why are our leaders hesitant to confront those in charge of this catastrophe and demand that they take responsibility? Whose objectives are they advancing? Polluters are responsible for paying. Now.”