An earlier draft of the delegated act included the following language: « 6.1. The conservation activity does not only serve the purpose of offsetting the impact of another economic activity.”
This was already some very twisted language to say offsetting is included. 2/6
...But not sufficient, as a few of us called them on it. So instead of removing the allowance for offsetting, they merely reworded it to try and convince civil society that the issue was gone. 3/6
However in the new wording, while offsetting is ostensibly excluded, "net biodiversity gains" from conservation/restoration are included, as well as "outcomes beyond offsetting."
As "net" means by definition offsetting, we understand it to mean that offsetting IS included.. 4/6
...as long as conservation/restoration actions go just a little bit beyond offsetting to reach a biodiversity "net gain". In other words, merely offsetting is bad, but if you offset just a tad more than what you destroyed this is green. Seriously? 5/6
How stupid does the Commission think we are exactly? And how far into anti-democratic obfuscation are they willing to go to push contested false solutions?
Let's hope that the European Parliament will use their veto power to block this delegated act. 6/6
...In other news the European Commission also decided to include investments in "efficient" planes using 15% of "Sustainable Aviation Fuel" in their fuel mix in the #taxonomy of green economic activities.🤦♂️🤦♂️ carbon-pulse.com/207640/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Institutional capture via language: what do UNDP, ECB, OECD, EU Commission & an environmentally minded MEP have in common? They all endorsed consciously or not a contested reconceptualisation of #nature & human life at last week' #beyondgrowth event beyond-growth-2023.eu/lecture/focus-…… 1/11
@spietikainen started the panel by stating: "let's assume (..) that we all agree already that GDP is flawed and not the right measure and that we need a new metering system that includes the planetary boundaries, the #naturalcapital and the social wellbeing of humans." 2/11
While we know Sirpa and do not doubt her intentions, the reference to #naturalcapital - a simplistic and contested reconceptualisation of #nature - is extremely problematic and shows the level of linguistic capture on the issue of conservation. 3/11
Nature's financialisation lobby latest disingenuous narratives and tactics involve pushing governments to help create demand for #biodiversity#offset markets, and dropping the #offset claim in appearance only, in order to reduce legal liability: 1/11 uploads-ssl.webflow.com/623a362e6b1a3e…
The latest report from the taskforce on nature markets lobby group openly advocates for the "imposition of a nature / #biodiversity tax and trading system" as a "potential legal enablers for scaling biodiversity credit #markets." 2/11
"The proceeds from the tax could then be applied by the government to fund the purchase of biodiversity credits from projects in accordance with government priorities. This approach would serve as an incentive for corporates to reduce their negative impacts on nature... 3/11
1/14 BREAKING -The European Commission just published a draft #taxonomy's delegated act for biodiversity - i.e. its list of the economic activities that fight biodiversity loss in the EU - that includes debunked #biodiversity#offsetting
2/14 The list includes so far 2 activities, with more to come in the future: 1. Conservation and restoration of habitats, ecosystems and species; 2. The provision of short-term tourism accommodation
3/14 We first note that the conservation & restoration activity does not prioritize curbing destruction over restoration, thereby implicitly favouring the latter, despite its uncertain & delayed results and weak track record
Beware the disingenuous narrative from #biodiversity financiers ahead of #COP15. It goes like this: 1. We need to integrate #nature into our economies to protect it (except no one has ever demonstrated that we do, & history of conservation shows that we don’t) 1/6
2. Markets on nature are happening anyway, we just need to ensure good governance (they are not happening anyway, private lobbies are actively promoting them, and their conceptual issues go way beyond governance) 2/6 greenfinanceobservatory.org/wp-content/upl…
In fact, off the record most financiers, environmental & policy experts agree that they will most probably be an environmental failure and a political success, just like carbon offsets, i.e. they will buy time to continue maximising growth 3/6
"I look forward to working with the Coalition to make these markets a reality" said British MP Helen Whately, exchequer secretary to the Treasury. The UK govt has indeed committed to working with this coalition to scale up environmental mkts in the UK carbon-pulse.com/162013/?utm_so… 2/6
This news follows the recent UK government announcement of the creation of a wetland ‘super reserve’ in the south west of England containing 11 Mt of #carbon in storage 3/6
Under this approach, the destruction of a habitat for flamingos in Spain could be considered to be offset by the restoration of a habitat for bats in Greece, as long as you claim that it is "better." 2/11
Beyond its obvious lack of environmental integrity, this approach will also enable the financialisation of biodiversity destruction through the creation of a related #offset market, and shift the conversation away from the need to curb destruction: 3/11