Do you think the UN should purchase carbon offsets?


I totally disagree with most of the above comments.

Firstly we can all agree that the UN should be carbon neutral -in other words, to cause as much good as harm to the environment. We can also agree that the UN's first priority should be to reduce its own impact BEFORE paying someone else to be green for them. And we can finally also agree that this can be done in a combination of many ways; such as reducing emissions, reducing consumption, recycling, lowering dependence on fossil fuels and energy, and most importantly, teaching younger generations the importance of conservation of what we've got on earth.

These are exactly what some carbon offsetting organisations do! I will concede that there are probably some bad offsetting companies that are money-grabbers who aim to profit off the good conscience of others, but an organisation the size of the UN can and would put time and effort into selecting a great initiative to buy carbon offsets through.

Buying good carbon offsets can be compared to paying a bunch of poor people who you trust to pick up litter when you don't have the time to. It CAN be a great thing.

Why is offsetting the first question?

Every credible source - even some of the companies that sell offsets for a living - says offsetting should be a last resort. Saving energy will nearly always be more cost effective than paying someone else to clean up your mess.

If the UN is serious about walking the talk, let's see a poll about whether the UN should be aiming to cut emissions 80% by 2050 (which is what the IPCC says is needed to stop catastrophic global warming).

Of cours united nations can be able to purshase the carbon
1- by protecting the enviroment.
2- to keep the enviroment claine.

Unfortunately offsets, like other aspects of the burgeoning carbon trade, tend to make matters worse, not better. Turning an ecological problem into a business opportunity is great for the investors and polluters who stand to benefit, but will not solve anything. It's no substitute for actually reducing emissions.

The UN is in a unique position to use it's status as a global body to help stop this dangerous, unjust, and deluded practice.

There's a free book on the subject downloadable here:


sorry if my comment may seem polemic but i do not think this is the most important question and actually it could even be misleading. It would be a good first step if the UN could find ways of reducing emissions. We have to make sure that discussions on offsetting do not kill all discussions on greener and more sustainable UN.

The UN has other means to invest in sustainable actions and the effort should be concentrated towards reducing GHG emission.

It is too easy to declare that you are Carbon neutral if you (can) buy carbon offsets.

Comment on this article

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.