Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Carbon Markets Are Not the Solution: The Failed Relaunch of Emission Trading and the Clean Development Mechanism

Published

on

In light of the growing number of cold and hot wars around the world, attention to climate issues has noticeably declined, at least in Germany. Meanwhile, supposed solutions, such as carbon emission trading and the Clean Development Mechanism, continue to be promoted. As Maria Neuhauss argues, this is a bluff with far-reaching consequences.

There was more bad news in January 2025: The European Earth observation program Copernicus and the World Meteorological Organization reported that the global average temperature in 2024 was 1.6 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This marked the first time the average global temperature exceeded the 1.5-degree target established in the Paris Climate Agreement.

In light of the growing number of crises and conflict hotspots around the world, attention to climate issues has noticeably declined, at least in Germany. While 1.4 million people demonstrated for more climate protection in Germany in September 2019, according to Fridays for Future, it is now almost impossible to speak of a climate movement. The catalyst for the third German ‘movement cycle’ was undoubtedly the rebranding of Last Generation in December 2024. The group had been decimated by state repression and media agitation in the preceding months. The U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement at the beginning of this year made it clear that defenders of the fossil fuel status quo have gained momentum and intend to achieve their goals without compromise. However, as global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise and the material world follows its own rules, the problem of global warming will likely resurface in the collective consciousness in the foreseeable future. Whether through heat waves, extreme weather events, water shortages, or forest fires. The question is whether and what new answers and approaches a reinvigorated climate movement will develop if it does not limit itself to ‘solidarity prepping’ and actually wants to influence the course of events.

Central to this is not only resolute resistance against fossil inertia forces, but also testing the actions of liberal actors. Although they acknowledge the problem of climate change and claim to want to solve it, the measures they take are inadequate at best or, at worst, create new profit opportunities for the industries that must be phased out. This is far from a comprehensive solution to the ecological crisis, which encompasses more than just climate change. Emission trading and the associated offset mechanisms that are part of the international climate negotiations are one example that illustrates this well.

‘Climate math’ of flexible mechanisms

Emission trading is based on the idea that greenhouse gas emissions are still possible but must be justified with corresponding ‘pollution rights.’ The number of certificates is limited and should decrease over time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Emission trading provides fundamental flexibility by allowing certificates to be bought and sold. Ultimately, this is intended to achieve the most cost-efficient climate protection possible because emission-reducing measures are expected to be implemented first where they can be done quickly and cheaply. This allows one to profit from selling unused emission allowances to other actors who initially shy away from such measures. These actors must buy the allowances until the increased prices resulting from the shortage make emission-reducing measures unavoidable. At least, that’s the theory.

Emission trading is closely linked to the concept of climate neutrality, which plays a central role in climate policy. Greenhouse gas emissions are offset by preventing emissions, using natural carbon sinks, or removing CO2 from the atmosphere. The trick to this ‘climate math’ is that, as long as emissions are compensated for, they do not count, even if greenhouse gases continue to be released into the air. These compensation measures are called ‘offsets.’

The idea that not all emissions must be reduced but can, in principle, be bought out of this obligation is based on the global inequalities that have developed historically and that fundamentally structured the first global climate agreement, the Kyoto Protocol of 1997. In line with the ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ approach, the protocol only required industrialized countries to reduce emissions because they were mainly responsible for the high concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), industrialized countries could partially buy their way out of this responsibility by financing emissions-reduction measures in developing and emerging countries. The CDM has therefore been described as a modern “indulgence trade” (Altvater & Brunnengräber, 2008). This allowed industrialized countries to reconcile their energy production methods with the need for climate protection while outsourcing conflicts over the energy transition, such as land use, to the Global South (Bauriedl, 2016).

Social and environmental shortcomings of the CDM

From a climate protection perspective, however, it only makes sense to include emission reductions in developing and emerging countries in the emissions balance of industrialized countries if the investments actually help reduce emissions – that is, if the projects would not have been realized without investments from the Global North. Conversely, if projects under the CDM are not additional, such as if a dam would have been built without investments from the Global North, companies in industrialized countries can claim emission credits without actually helping to reduce emissions. This is because the emissions would have been avoided anyway. This would result in an overall increase in emissions.

In fact, the additionality of many projects financed under the CDM has been questioned over the years (Öko-Institut, 2016). However, less attention has been paid to the fact that CDM projects have repeatedly led to the displacement of local people and land grabbing. For example, a reforestation project in the Kachung Central Forest Reserve in Uganda displaced many neighboring villagers who used to farm and graze their cattle there. Plagued by food insecurity, hunger, and poverty, the population was denied access to the land when CDM-approved plantations were established, further worsening their situation. The monoculture plantations also had negative ecological consequences (Carbon Market Watch, 2018). Thus, the CDM perpetuated colonial conditions on several levels. The mechanism ended with the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol in 2020. However, credits issued beforehand can still be used under the Paris Climate Agreement.

Price incentives instead of bans

A critical review of emission trading is also urgently needed. It is failing as a suitable means of climate protection on several levels. For example, in the case of the European Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), the continued generous allocation of free certificates, particularly to energy-intensive industries, protects those responsible for high CO₂ emissions from strict requirements. Additionally, the emission trading approach suffers from the fact that it is unclear whether, or to what extent, the price of emissions certificates influences investment decisions in favor of climate protection. According to various studies, the price would need to be between EUR 140 and 6,000 per ton of CO₂ to achieve the 1.5-degree target (IPCC, 2018).

However, local industry is already complaining about excessively high electricity prices (the average certificate price in 2024 was €65 per ton of CO₂), causing the government to worry about the location’s attractiveness. Given this, can we really expect politicians to force energy-intensive industries to do more to protect the climate with much higher certificate prices? Ultimately, this reveals a fundamental flaw in emission trading: its indirect effect. Instead of using targets and bans, the idea is to persuade companies to cut emissions through price incentives. However, this approach puts climate protection in the hands of actors who primarily follow the profit motive and do not necessarily translate the price signal into climate protection measures. This explains why companies enrich themselves from emission trading and the Clean Development Mechanism wherever possible (CE Delft, 2021).

For those who design and control emission trading systems, the aforementioned criticisms are merely one reason to continue supporting and refining the chosen method. This is also true for the EU, which, after a period during which emission trading was considered ineffective due to low prices, reinvigorated the system at the end of the 2010s. For instance, the EU introduced the market stability reserve. The goal is to maintain public confidence in the effectiveness of this instrument because it is the global climate protection tool. However, evaluations of its effectiveness are rare and provide little cause for optimism. According to an evaluation of various studies, the EU ETS achieves only 0 to 1.5% emission reductions per year (Green, 2021).

History and responsibility are being erased

This makes the ongoing negotiations at UN climate conferences concerning the implementation of global emission trading and a new Clean Development Mechanism all the more critical. In addition to the question of how financially weak countries will be compensated for climate-related damage and losses, the annual COPs primarily address Article 6 of the Paris Climate Agreement. Article 6 regulates international cooperation, i.e., the extent to which a country can count mitigation measures or emission avoidance elsewhere in its climate balance. Last year’s COP29 in Baku further advanced the operationalization of this article. Based on this, old CDM projects can now be transferred to the new Sustainable Development Mechanism under certain conditions. However, the first project to clear this hurdle reportedly reported emission reductions up to 26 times higher than expected based on scientific evaluation (Mulder, 2025).

Despite urgent warnings, world climate conferences seem determined to repeat past mistakes. The focus is on profit. As Tamra Gilbertson summed up in an interview with Chris Lang, the climate is the last priority. After all, trade processes will incur deductions in the future that will flow into the international adaptation fund. However, according to Gilbertson, this is also due to the fact that the climate conferences have failed to reach viable agreements on financing climate damage and adaptation measures in poorer countries thus far. Instead, emission trading is expected to deliver the necessary funds. “This is where common but differentiated responsibilities are eradicated. History and responsibility are erased, and capitalism in the form of carbon markets takes its place” (Lang, 2024).

While these processes are difficult for the public to understand, the escalating climate crisis requires critical attention more than ever. The problems associated with emission trading and the Clean Development Mechanism urgently need to be exposed as distractions from the real task at hand: rapidly phasing out fossil fuels.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Food systems in conflict areas: Architectures of armed conflict are turning food and hunger into weapons of war.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio team.

War now extends beyond guns and bombs, with food systems becoming strategic tools in modern conflict, a crucial factor for understanding global security and the deliberate targeting of food as a weapon.

Fields are burned before harvest. Irrigation systems are destroyed. Fishing zones are blocked. Grain silos are bombed. Seeds are contaminated or confiscated. Entire communities are cut off from their ability to grow or buy food for months or years, deliberately harming people’s access to food.

The result is not only displacement or destruction, but a slower, more deliberate outcome: hunger. In many cases, it functions not as a side effect of war but as a method of weakening populations and reshaping control over land, resources, and survival itself.

A new position paper by La Via Campesina, representing over 200 million peasants, Indigenous peoples, farmers, and rural workers, argues that controlling land and food is a deliberate political act, and that defending these resources is vital to life itself. This underscores the critical need for collective action to safeguard food security.

The report frames war and hunger as interconnected forces within a global political order, highlighting the widespread implications of targeting food systems.

The document states that “war and hunger are two faces of the same system,” and adds that defending land and food systems is inseparable from defending life itself.

La Via Campesina describes the current global moment as one defined by overlapping conflicts across Gaza, Sudan, Ukraine, Yemen, the Sahel, Myanmar, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and other regions. Rather than isolated crises, the report suggests these wars reflect a broader global system shaped by intensifying geopolitical competition, expanding military industries, weakening international governance, and growing pressure on land, water, and food systems.

“Rare earth elements, fossil fuels, water, and agricultural land are the true stakes of most contemporary conflicts. The targeting of Ukrainian grain exports, the scramble for Congolese cobalt, and the siege of Gaza’s fishing grounds all reflect this logic,” the paper reveals.

The rural poor, who produce most of the World’s food, are bearing the heaviest burden. They face poverty, hunger, displacement, and vulnerability.

Modern conflicts target food infrastructure-irrigation, grain reserves, and seed banks-highlighting how warfare deliberately undermines food security and calls for increased vigilance.

“The use of starvation as a weapon of war is strategic. Throughout history, empires understood that destroying a people’s capacity to feed themselves is among the most effective tools of subjugation.” La Via Campesina describes.

Across the cases examined in the report, La Via Campesina argues that controlling food has long been a way of controlling populations. What is different today, it suggests, is the scale, coordination, and technological sophistication through which food systems are disrupted in modern warfare.

In Gaza, the report cites widespread destruction of agricultural land and severe restrictions on fishing areas, alongside repeated disruptions of food supply corridors. Humanitarian assessments referenced in the paper indicate that more than 80% of farmland has been damaged or rendered unusable, deepening already severe food insecurity and famine risk warnings.

In Yemen, years of restrictions on key ports, particularly Hudaydah, through which most food imports enter, have significantly limited access to essential supplies. Combined with ongoing conflict, this has contributed to one of the most severe and prolonged hunger crises in the world.

In eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, cycles of armed violence have repeatedly destroyed crops and forced farming communities from their land. In many areas, agricultural production has collapsed entirely due to insecurity and the presence of armed groups controlling rural territory. The result has been persistent and widespread food insecurity affecting millions of people.

In Sudan, the conflict has similarly disrupted food systems through the looting of grain stores, destruction of farms, and mass displacement of rural populations. Entire agricultural regions have been emptied, turning once-productive farmland into zones of acute hunger.

The environmental degradation in war zones, including soil contamination and deforestation, is linked directly to global climate and resource crises, calling for a heightened awareness of these interconnected issues.

The report also links these local environmental impacts to global ecological pressures. It argues that as climate instability, water scarcity, soil degradation, and biodiversity loss intensify, competition over natural resources is increasing. In this context, land, water, and fertile agricultural regions become strategic assets in broader geopolitical struggles.

What emerges from both the data and case studies is a picture of hunger that is not only humanitarian but deeply political. It is shaped by conflict, resource control, and global systems that determine who can produce food, who can access it, and who is excluded from both.

In this sense, the report suggests, war is no longer confined to battlefields. It extends into wheat fields, fishing waters, seed banks, and supply routes. Hunger becomes not just a consequence of war, but one of its most powerful instruments.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Experts warn that without Africa’s control over resources and climate financing, the continent faces the risk of entering a new era of “green colonialism”.

Published

on

By Witness Radio Team

As the global push for clean energy accelerates, African governments are under mounting pressure to move away from fossil fuels and embrace renewable energy. But economists, political leaders, and climate justice advocates are warning that Africa’s transition could reproduce the same unequal economic structures established during colonialism unless the continent gains greater control over its resources, industries, and financing systems, inspiring a sense of agency and possibility.

Although Africa contributes less than 4 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, it is among the regions most vulnerable to climate change. The continent continues to suffer disproportionately from a crisis largely caused by industrialized nations, including prolonged droughts and devastating floods, which greatly affect its people.

Governments across Africa are increasingly adopting renewable energy policies promoted as pathways toward sustainable development. Despite being promoted, a growing number of experts argue that the transition risks becoming another extractive project in which African resources fuel foreign industries while local communities remain impoverished.

The global transition to clean energy has sharply increased demand for minerals such as cobalt, lithium, graphite, manganese, and copper, which are abundant across Africa and critical for batteries, electric vehicles, and renewable energy technologies.

At the same time, the continent possesses vast renewable energy potential. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Africa could generate significantly more renewable energy than it currently consumes.

In an interview with Witness Radio, Tunisian economist and President of the Global Institute for Sustainable Prosperity, Fadhel Kaboub, said Africa’s role in the global transition should go beyond merely supplying raw materials to industrialized countries.

“We cannot decarbonize a system that hasn’t been structurally economically decolonized yet. Africa has the potential to become an energy powerhouse globally, an industrial powerhouse, and as a result, an economic and geopolitical powerhouse.” Kaboub reveals.

Kaboub argued that the current global economic system continues to place African countries at the bottom of supply chains, echoing colonial patterns. This pattern is vital for economists and global citizens to understand.

“Africa was assigned the role of supplying cheap raw materials while importing finished products and technologies. The danger is that the green transition is reinforcing the same model instead of transforming it,” he added.

Across the continent, activists and researchers are increasingly raising concerns about what they describe as “green colonialism,” where climate and environmental projects dispossess communities while benefiting foreign governments and corporations.

In several African countries, including Uganda, large-scale carbon offset projects have been linked to land conflicts and forced displacement. Critics say some carbon markets allow polluting corporations in the Global North to continue emitting greenhouse gases while using African land and forests to offset their emissions.

Environmental advocates warn that unless African governments ensure local ownership and value addition in mining linked to renewable energy, the continent risks repeating the history of raw material extraction, which is key for informed policy decisions.

Africa’s green transition discussions also focused on climate financing as a key point of debate. African leaders have repeatedly criticized rich countries for not sufficiently financing adaptation and renewable energy projects, despite their historic role in spewing the bulk of the World’s carbon emissions.

At the COP29 climate Summit in November 2024 in Azerbaijan, His Excellency Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, warned that many African countries are trapped between debt repayment obligations and climate adaptation needs.

“Africa did little to cause the climate crisis, yet the debt climate trap has saddled many of its nations with a tragic choice: Eschew repayments to fund adaptation to climate shocks and risk default- a financial purgatory where development indicators plummet; or honor obligations and compromise on resilience, thus entrenching vulnerability to development-shuttering climate events,” he added.

Speaking during the Africa Climate Summit 2025, former Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn said debt restructuring must become part of global climate discussions.

“Unless we confront the debt crisis head-on, efforts to finance Africa’s climate ambitions will continue to fall short,” Desalegn said.

Kaboub believes the financing crisis reflects a broader historical injustice. “The industrialized world has consumed most of the global carbon budget that creates a climate debt owed to Africa and the Global South.” He revealed.

Some African economists and climate justice groups are calling for climate reparations, not more loans that deepen dependency, to address historical injustices and support equitable development.

“The future of Africa’s green transition depends on who controls it. If Africa controls its resources, industries, and development path, the transition could become a tool for liberation. If not, it risks becoming another phase of exploitation under a green banner.” Kaboub concluded.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Rising fertilizer dependence sparks debate over Africa’s agricultural future; experts call for urgent critical review process.

Published

on

By Witness Radio Team.

In March this year, the United Nations World Food Program (WFP) warned that the number of people facing acute hunger globally could rise sharply if escalating conflict in the Middle East continues to destabilize the global economy, projecting that nearly 45 million additional people could slide into acute food insecurity.

Since 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel have been engaged in a war with Iran and its regional allies. The conflict began when the US and Israel launched airstrikes on Iran, targeting military and government sites and assassinating several Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Iran responded with missile and drone strikes on Israel, US bases, and US-allied Arab countries in West Asia, and the temporary closure of the Strait of Hormuz, disrupting global trade.

As global tensions continue, experts have revealed that they are disrupting fertilizer supply chains and driving up prices, an issue likely to threaten food security and make policymakers feel responsible for safeguarding Africa’s future.

A recent report by GRAIN, an international Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), argues that Africa’s increasing reliance on imported chemical fertilizers is exposing farmers and food systems to economic, political, and environmental risks.

Titled “Can African Food Systems Thrive Without Chemical Fertilizers?”, the report links recent fertilizer price spikes to conflicts such as the Russia-Ukraine war and the recent escalation involving Iran, Israel, and the United States. According to the report, these crises have disrupted the movement of fertilizers and raw materials, such as natural gas and sulfur, pushing prices beyond the reach of many African farmers.

According to the report, the African fertilizer market is currently worth around US$10–15 billion and is projected to grow to US$20 billion over the next four years. It adds that the largest fertilizer manufacturers — including Yara of Norway, OCP of Morocco, PhosAgro of Russia, Nutrien of Canada, and Mosaic of the United States — are seeking to expand their presence in this fast-growing, highly profitable market.

GRAIN researcher Ange David Baimey told the Witness Radio team that growing concerns about the ongoing impact of global conflicts on African agriculture drove the investigation.

“As you can see, the recent crisis involving Iran, the USA, and the Middle East created a lot of uncertainty concerning how fertilizers can continue reaching African countries. Before this, we also had the Ukraine crisis and COVID-19. If you look at the last six years, these crises have seriously affected agriculture in Africa.” Ange, who participated in the research, told Witness Radio.

For decades, many African governments, donors, and agribusinesses have promoted chemical fertilizers as essential for increasing food production. However, the report highlights that relying on organic and sustainable practices-such as indigenous knowledge, crop diversity, and soil fertility methods-can be safer and more resilient. Showcasing successful case studies can help policymakers see practical alternatives to dependency.

“The only solution to the best agricultural practices is not chemical fertilizers. Farmers have tested and agreed that organic fertilizers are the answer. Ange further mentioned.

According to the report, the push for chemical fertilizers accelerated during the Green Revolution period, driven largely by multinational agribusiness interests seeking profits from agricultural inputs.

“The Green Revolution is not the beginning of agriculture in Africa. Our systems existed before chemical fertilizers. What we see now is a system where companies are making profits while creating dependency.” He said.

The report notes that many African countries import significant quantities of fertilizers from Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman. Countries including Sudan, Tanzania, Kenya, and Mozambique remain highly dependent on these imports, making them vulnerable to supply disruptions and rising global prices.

Although African governments spend billions of dollars on fertilizer subsidy programs, many small-scale farmers still struggle to afford the products. In some countries, fertilizer prices are significantly higher than global averages due to import dependency, market concentration, and the dominance of multinational corporations in the supply chain.

“In our research, we also discovered that African farmers often pay more for the same fertilizers than farmers in Europe or the United States. The market is controlled by powerful companies whose goal is profit.” Ange explained.

The report identifies major corporations such as Yara International, OCP Group, and Dangote Group as key players shaping Africa’s fertilizer markets.

“These companies have huge influence and power in African agriculture. Governments must examine even discussions around continental trade agreements carefully because the same multinational companies may continue dominating the market.” Ange observed.

Beyond economic concerns, the report also highlights environmental and health impacts associated with chemical fertilizers, including soil degradation, water pollution, and increased pesticide use. The report advises African countries to adopt organic approaches to improve their yields, human and soil health, and to avoid environmental shocks.

“A change of course off the chemical fertilizer treadmill and towards agroecology is even more urgent in the face of the climate crisis. Climate scientists are calling today for a 42% global reduction in fertilizer use by 2050, to keep the planet livable.” The report noted.

Experts urge African leaders to use these global shocks as an opportunity to rethink Africa’s agricultural direction. “If you are dependent upon another person for your food, what happens when that person cuts off access? That is the situation Africa is in. The COVID crisis, the Ukraine war, and now the Gulf crisis all prove that reliance on imported fertilizers is dangerous. Africa can feed itself. The question is whether governments are willing to assist with that transition.” He concluded.

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter