La política de compensaciones de carbono que respalda Jeff Bezos, en el punto de mira

The Science Based Targets initiative’s (SBTi) decision to allow companies to use carbon credits to meet their climate goals has sparked a deep internal crisis, with dozens of employees demanding the resignation of senior management. This measure represents a strategic shift that prioritizes external compensation over direct reductions in a company’s own emissions, particularly in polluting sectors. By validating this practice, the organization faces accusations of having relaxed its scientific standards to accommodate the interests of its largest funders, setting a dangerous precedent for corporate transparency. The controversy is intrinsically linked to greenwashing because it legitimizes market-based mechanisms that enable polluters to maintain their current activities while purchasing permits to “offset” their impact, without addressing the root cause of the problem. This undermines the integrity of net-zero emissions commitments, as carbon credits do not always guarantee permanent or verifiable reductions in CO₂. By allowing companies to continue operating with fossil fuels while funding offset projects, the line between genuine environmental responsibility and manipulation of public perception becomes blurred, facilitating greenwashing. This article is relevant because it exposes how the influence of major philanthropic and corporate funds can distort climate validation criteria, transforming tools grounded in scientific rigor into instruments for image laundering. If leading certification organizations accept offsetting as the primary solution, the pressure necessary for genuine decarbonization is weakened. Thus, what is presented as climate progress may turn out to be a sophisticated mechanism for justifying inaction and protecting unsustainable business models under the guise of environmental commitment.

Source: expansion.com
Published on 2024-04-13