Comments for REDD-Monitor

Comment on Human rights abuses against Indigenous Peoples and the proposed “30×30” target by Kathleen Mccroskey

Kathleen Mccroskey — Wed, 14 Dec 2022 03:36:46 +0000

I would sign that letter also.
The ongoing “biodiversity” conferences and agreements have several embedded errors.
“Biodiversity” in that context seems to be something that “we” can arrange on someone else’s land, out of the way of the progress of “our” civilization, so that it is out-of-sight, out-of-mind, preserved as on a reservation, and “we” can then say: “been there, done that” and get on with Progress.
Putting a price on Nature, or any item in Nature, is no different from putting a price on a slave at an auction: Nature is now up for Auction, if the price is right.
This whole scheme is a massive up-tick in human hubris – can it really be happening that the species most responsible for the outright destruction of this planet, assumes that it can manage Nature to the benefit of all forms of life?
And then, shockingly, figure out how to sell and trade nature indulgences which presume to allow us to continue in our destructive ways?
No! Protecting biodiversity is a one-on-one thing – YOU, each of you, must disengage from activities that you have control of, in your own domains, and encourage life and biodiversity instead. This is NOT something that you can hand over to governments, it must be done on the level of EACH person, world-wide.

Comment on WWF scandal (part 5): Pandaleaks – The Dark Side of the WWF (now available in English) by Tuyen

Tuyen — Mon, 12 Dec 2022 11:14:35 +0000

Again I am not a blind follower of WWF. In fact, I have closely watched WWF go from being an independent conservation organization to one with strong links to the industry. I have an ethical problem with that strategy, but I think a little more scrutiny is needed of the WWF’s why. It is only for corporate profiteering when using the environment as a tool, or WWF still holds its core values and has decided to close its nose, enter the industry and try to exploit the opportunity Is it for the long term? Honestly, I’m still undecided on that (certainly a bit of both) and it would be far more responsible to discuss it than present such a biased “report”. here.

Comment on WWF scandal (part 5): Pandaleaks – The Dark Side of the WWF (now available in English) by Tuyen

Tuyen — Mon, 12 Dec 2022 11:11:50 +0000

tôi đã theo dõi sát sao WWF đi từ một tổ chức bảo tồn độc lập trở thành một tổ chức có mối liên kết chặt chẽ với ngành. Tôi có vấn đề về đạo đức với chiến lược đó, nhưng tôi nghĩ rằng cần phải xem xét kỹ lưỡng hơn một chút về lý do tại sao của WWF. Nó chỉ dành cho mục đích trục lợi của công ty khi sử dụng môi trường như một công cụ, hay WWF vẫn giữ các giá trị cốt lõi của mình và đã quyết định bịt mũi, tham gia vào ngành và cố gắng khai thác cơ hội đó vì lợi ích lâu dài

Comment on Nature Positive: The new ‘con’ in conservation is a slogan that will only help businesses, opening the floodgates for a torrent of even more greenwashing by Joanna Salidis

Joanna Salidis — Thu, 08 Dec 2022 17:40:40 +0000

Good point about the vagueness of “Nature Positive.” Unfortunately, I think it is just one part of the overall business strategy …. the components work together to facilitate large scale land grabs and income generation, generally. I don’t see how they (businesses and NGOs) will give it up as profit is at the heart of their engagement. See https://tinyurl.com/3fe992h3

Comment on Nature Positive: The new ‘con’ in conservation is a slogan that will only help businesses, opening the floodgates for a torrent of even more greenwashing by Deborah Hartwell

Deborah Hartwell — Thu, 08 Dec 2022 05:59:35 +0000

Thank you for educating us.

Comment on Nature Positive: The new ‘con’ in conservation is a slogan that will only help businesses, opening the floodgates for a torrent of even more greenwashing by Kathleen Mccroskey

Kathleen Mccroskey — Thu, 08 Dec 2022 04:21:32 +0000

That’s great, what Professor Eleanor Milner-Gulland says (see above).
Beyond all this wrangling over terms and measurability, and obscured by all that, seems to be the underlying intent of these CBD agreements – to possibly show some defined areas where “Nature” is contained, like on a reservation, so that “We” (Business-as-usual) can go on with our total, all-out war on Nature in the other 70% of the planet.
Sorry, that will not work. And thinking that the rogue species on this planet (humans) is even marginally capable of “managing” its victim (Nature) simple boggles the mind.
We must find a way to live in harmony with this planet’s other forms of life, and that starts with setting Limits to Progress. https://www.mccroskey.ca/kathleen/simple-life.htm

Comment on Guyana is to sell US$750 million carbon offsets to Hess Corporation, a US-based oil corporation that is extracting oil in Guyana. The saga of false solutions to the climate crisis continues by Chris Lang

Chris Lang — Tue, 06 Dec 2022 08:50:39 +0000

@Huevones - Good question. I think you would have to ask ART TREES why they don't care who buys their carbon offsets. Although to be honest, any corporation that buys carbon offsets does so for one reason: To continue polluting while giving the impression of taking climate action. The reality (no matter who buys the carbon offsets) is that carbon trading cannot address the climate crisis. As climate scientist Kevin Anderson points out, "nature cannot be fooled" by shuffling CO₂ emissions around the planet, "we have to recognise we cannot keep burning fossil fuels".

Comment on Guyana is to sell US$750 million carbon offsets to Hess Corporation, a US-based oil corporation that is extracting oil in Guyana. The saga of false solutions to the climate crisis continues by Huevones

Huevones — Tue, 06 Dec 2022 07:33:34 +0000

Hello,
this question is directly related to what happened in the article.
If there is the legal framework for that; why aren’t oil companies excluded from buying (some) carbon certificates of high quality certificate standards such as PlanVivo (for example)?

Comment on Guyana is to sell US$750 million carbon offsets to Hess Corporation, a US-based oil corporation that is extracting oil in Guyana. The saga of false solutions to the climate crisis continues by Kathleen Mccroskey

Kathleen Mccroskey — Tue, 06 Dec 2022 03:04:57 +0000

Obviously, Guyana is a prime example of this species’ war on Nature.
A harvested forest is the opposite of a “sustainable” forest.
Tree plantations are not a replacement forest.
Apparently Guyana’s leaders do not like their country – they wish to turn it into an industrial wasteland. There are enough sad places like that on this planet already.
An INTACT forest cannot “offset” an additional set of emissions beyond what it was already doing in pre-industrial age times in helping maintain the planet’s energy balance. Cutting the forest is one negative, “producing” oil is another negative – only fantasy accounting methods can imagine one balancing the other.

Comment on The Frankfurt Declaration on biodiversity promotes protecting 30% of the earth, “Nature-Positive”, and offsetting. To make matters worse, it excludes Indigenous Peoples by Kathleen Mccroskey

Kathleen Mccroskey — Fri, 02 Dec 2022 17:46:22 +0000

Yes, neo-colonial land grab!
If you put a price on Nature or an item in Nature, this is no different from putting a price on a slave at an auction.
Nature is now up for auction.
Get this: Nature has no price – it is truly priceless.
The best way to begin protecting Nature is to entirely stop the expansion of the Human Camp – ever-widening cities, roads, airports, mines and deforestation.
Do Business People truly believe that they can fence off 30% of the planet (on other people’s land) and Poof! Nature is “protected” so that we can continue on with destruction of the 70%?
Here’s a better way to start: let’s mark out a circle 500 km in radius around both the Leibniz Natural History Museums and the Frankfurt Zoological Society, and re-wild that area. That work should give us excellent guidance on how to clean up the human footprint on this small blue globe.