The People’s Alliance for Climate Justice (ARUKI) has voiced strong concerns about carbon trading ahead of the COP30 Climate Summit in Belém, Brazil, set for November 10-21, 2025. Their worries center on the idea that selling carbon credits isn’t a straightforward solution to lowering emissions, especially when the energy sector—particularly coal power—is still a major culprit.
Torry Kuswardono, the Secretariat Coordinator for ARUKI, emphasized that Indonesia’s climate policies primarily focus on selling carbon credits and preserving forests rather than confronting the real emissions from energy production. He noted that the perception of forests as mere commodities could undermine the importance of genuine emissions reductions.
Interestingly, carbon absorption by forests isn’t instantaneous. “Every ton of CO2 we release doesn’t vanish the next day,” Torry explained. There’s a lag that allows greenhouse gases to accumulate in our atmosphere. Moreover, studies suggest that some carbon markets may be over-reporting their benefits. Research shows that up to 90% of credits from initiatives like Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) don’t reflect actual emission reductions.
This raises ethical concerns. Carbon trading could enable companies and countries to buy their way out of responsibility instead of genuinely reducing emissions. If organizations think they can offset pollution just by purchasing credits, the overall transition to clean energy might stall.
The social impacts are also significant. Often, offset projects affect local communities, including indigenous people and farmers. Without proper regulations, this could lead to “ecological colonialism,” where forests are maintained not for local people but as compensation for pollution elsewhere.
Despite the criticism, Indonesian officials are pushing forward with carbon trading initiatives, informing potential buyers from countries like Norway and Korea about the opportunities. They see this as part of a commitment to climate preservation, aligning with the Paris Agreement from 2015.
In summary, while carbon trading may seem like a straightforward approach to addressing climate change, stakeholders need to consider its limitations and ethical implications. Genuine emissions reductions require tackling the root causes rather than relying on market solutions that may not work as intended.
For more information on climate policies and carbon trading, check out resources from The Guardian.
Source link
COP30, Carbon Trading, Carbon, Emissions
