Don't worry - I'm going to do another thread here, this time with highlights from the 'longer report', which is longer than the summary of the synthesis, but shorter than the as-yet unreleased full synthesis (which are all summaries)
Every attempt to 'fix' the voluntary carbon market fails because everyone dances around the real purpose that it serves (a paid service to justify delaying emissions reductions using the fabrication of climate action)
"the Integrity Council includes a requirement to disclose a credit’s end-user, whether it be a company or individual"
If that actually gets followed, that will be useful data
Cleaning up carbon credits is fundamentally opposed to their core function.
If they are high integrity and meaningful, they are expensive, and no polluters actually wants to pay much at all to greenwash their emissions footprint.
Noticed that pro-climate-action accounts were stagnating or shrinking, and that denier accounts seemed to be ballooning. So - I checked, with some help, and....yep.
Elon Musk has made Twitter into a safe space for pro-fossil fuel disinformation. A 🧵
There have already been a few qualitative and quantitative analyses of growing pro-fossil lying on Twitter, namely around COP27 and Musk's purchase of Twitter. @ISDglobal / @jkingy et al -->>>
@ISDglobal@jkingy It's felt very much like denier and delay accounts have been given artificial prominence since Musk's purchase. Boosted into the 'for you' tab, showing up at the top of replies, surfaced in the 'explore' topics under generic energy and climate topics, etc.
That the fossil fuel lobby has wheeled out Graham Lloyd to shake a sword at the Safeguard Mechanism deal suggests that there's at least some good in there
APPEA mostly just seem deeply confused and vaguely anxious. They claim that mandating emissions reductions will lead to an increase in emissions. They're sort of just uttering a collection of random words at the moment in case they decide to fight it
The AFR is similarly vaguely unhappy but can't exactly describe why, because they know they're not allowed to just come out and say "We don't think climate groups should be allowed to have any influence on climate policy", so they just kinda dance around it
Corporations will have no problem "justifying" 100% offsets. They'll classify everything as hard to abate. What sort of requirement is this? "we will ask them to make up some weak justifications". I bet they're quaking with fear.
The Chubb review was an 'independent' review of offsets and despite all the evidence it gave a big ugly tick.
Why will the review of HIR be any different? There freeze should be a ban. We already know they're dodgy.