Now, it is quite clear that, historically, the majority of offset projects have not delivered on their promises to actually reduce or remove the emissions. Is it possible to leverage carbon markets to make sustainable products more affordable than non-sustainable ones? Capitalism working towards a greener planet, instead of against it. After all, it is assumed that a sustainable product will be more expensive than one that is “unsustainable”, right? But, what if we could leverage existing carbon markets to rewards those sustainable choices? Suddenly, our financial interests would be aligned to our environmental interests. Today, individuals or companies that take action and proactively purchase or use low-carbon products and services do so on their own “goodwill”, and are usually penalized by paying a so-called “ green premium“. That doesn’t mean additional taxation, making life less affordable, but one that rewards ‘good’ behavior that supports reaching our climate targets. We must transform our carbon-intensive economy into a ‘ carbon economy‘ where carbon impact is one of the key elements that price everything we do and consume. Unless we are ready to radically change our lifestyles and the economic model of capitalism, we need ways to incentivize behavior change that aligns with our climate targets. Unless we apply both, at scale, and immediately, we may not be able to stop the ship from sinking. carbon avoidance) AND we need to pump the water out (aka. First, we need to stop taking water in (aka. If we equate our current climate situation to that of the Titanic, the debate around carbon offsets becomes a lot clearer. But for now, despite the still-too-high cost of carbon removal solutions, markets favor both avoidance and removal offsets. COP26 in Glasgow, UK happening in November may provide more concrete answers. In the carbon world, the debate is mostly centered around whether or not carbon offsetting is a valid tool to fight climate change, and if so, should carbon removals (this is, activities that reduce the amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere) be prioritized over carbon avoidance (this is, activities that prevent carbon from reaching the atmosphere)? So far, the Paris Agreement – Article 6 confirmed the important role that carbon markets have in the fight against climate change, but offer no guidance on the debate of removals versus avoidance. We hit the iceberg, and our Titanic is sinking fast.

If we want to avoid our only boat from sinking, we better use every tool available in the toolbox. There is no time left for debates and try-outs: it’s not either this or that anymore, it’s both, and all the above. Each opinion has its own merits, however, some voices are starting to sound the alarm calling for an “all-hands-on-deck” approach. There is a heated debate among experts regarding what measures should we put in place first, which ones should be considered later, and which ones we shouldn’t do as they are not effective. According to the latest IPCC report, we have barely over a decade to prevent irreversible damage. Decades ago we tried to steer the boat away from the iceberg, but we’ve now taken a hit, and water is coming in fast. That is the conclusion that the scientific community has reached in recent years. Yes, we’ve already hit the iceberg, and we’re sinking, fast. Unfortunately for the celebrated ship, its crew and passengers, neither the watertight compartments nor the water pumps were enough to stop the Titanic from sinking. No one on the Titanic questioned whether they should do one or the other.

At the same time, he also ordered the water pumps to pump out the water that was filling the bow compartments. When the Titanic hit the fatal iceberg in the Northern Atlantic in April 1912, the captain rushed to close the 16 watertight compartments across the ship, hoping that no more than four of those would be flooded.

Titanic watertight compartments