Carbon Offsets Out Bidding African Concessions

[Tucketed]

What do we know about these “Carbon” companies out bidding on African Hunting Concessions. I have noticed two I believe in Zimbabwe and one in Mozambique that have had the highest bid and won as lease holder for very large concessions. I believe one Carbon Ark has given hunting rights to I believe CMS. What do we know about the business of what I believe is carbon offsets? As we know the majority of Tesla’s profits come from offsets is this another way which could impact us?Although CMS acquired from Carbon Ark the hunting rights this situation worries me greatly. Although I don’t truly understand the business model but as time goes on it seems that this could have great repercussions on hunting future on large concessions and the continued conservation of wildlife. I equate carbon and anti hunting, though I probably should not. Any large hunting organizations looking at this?

 

[Tucketed]

Africa Carbon Markets Initiative launched to dramatically expand Africa’s participation in voluntary carbon market - Climate Champions

The new Africa Carbon Markets Initiative (ACMI), which was inaugurated today at CO27, aims to support the growth of carbon credit production and create jobs in Africa.

climatechampions.unfccc.int

 

[375Fox]

Looking at CMS’s newsletter looks like the investor who bought the areas is putting a lot of additional money into area with anti-poaching, bore holes, etc. I don’t think we should automatically equate carbon and anti-hunting, it’s just business in 2023. Just speculation on my part, but they might be more motivated than others to ensure area doesn’t get degraded with farming, timber cutting, etc or reduces carbon storage they can sell/offset. If they sold hunting rights they are obviously interested in getting a return on their dollar and not into it for ideological reasons.

 

[rookhawk]

It's big business. It's also a great scam.

Namibia is mostly a desert wasteland. They are working to sell Carbon Credits where they receive income in exchange for the pledge that they will not develop the land that they neither had the means nor interest in developing anyway.

There is nothing inherent in a carbon credit system that would preclude hunting concessions from operating on a piece of land that is excluded from further development as the primary goal of the credit is to ensure that the land is not terraformed, altered, deforested, or inhabited adversely. Nonetheless, its likely that the buyers of carbon credits (e.g. United Airlines) would insist that nothing hunting occurs on the grounds so that the wildlife can flourish. (<sarcasm>)

 

[375Fox]

Namibia is mostly a desert wasteland. They are working to sell Carbon Credits where they receive income in exchange for the pledge that they will not develop the land that they neither had the means nor interest in developing anyway.

I wondered this where I was hunting in NW Namibia. An investor has 2 million acres under their control. Tourism development appeared being done very responsibly though, both photo tourism and hunting, and some lion research going on too. The hunting rights were again leased to an outfitter.

 

[BourbonTrail]

I want to invent some fake, virtue signaling way of making millions off of billionaires. It makes me feel inept in some way, like if these fools can do it, why can’t I. *sigh*

Edit: To me, this is like tobacco companies paying wheat farmers to not grow tobacco and getting a tax write off for it.

 

[Tucketed]

Looking at CMS’s newsletter looks like the investor who bought the areas is putting a lot of additional money into area with anti-poaching, bore holes, etc. I don’t think we should automatically equate carbon and anti-hunting, it’s just business in 2023. Just speculation on my part, but they might be more motivated than others to ensure area doesn’t get degraded with farming, timber cutting, etc or reduces carbon storage they can sell/offset. If they sold hunting rights they are obviously interested in getting a return on their dollar and not into it for ideological reasons.

@375Fox, agree that this could be really a great thing. Certainly stopping the clear cutting and charcoal business will pay back big. It just gives me a funny feeling that the greenies and antis will leverage their position at some point in time.

 

[rookhawk]

@375Fox, agree that this could be really a great thing. Certainly stopping the clear cutting and charcoal business will pay back big. It just gives me a funny feeling that the greenies and antis will leverage their position at some point in time.

That, and the fact that nobody has any real pressure to pollute less. We are simply selling indulgences so that the top polluters can claim they are "carbon neutral" by purchasing credits from non-polluters that probably had no intention of polluting anyway.

Imagine a future where everyone is polluting just as much, but the paperwork shows that pollution is the same.

It's all just a fancy and lucrative International version of a conservation easement.

 

[Tucketed]

The more I have researched this the bigger the bad feeling grows. If you research Carbon Ark and Wilderness who used to be Wilderness Safaris who manage now 6 million acres. The press releases state “The areas have been meaningfully degraded by logging for charcoal production, as well as burning for farming and hunting.” The degrading by hunting is a clue. They are out bidding many of the top GMA concessions currently and are allowing hunting but I would not hold your breath that this will continue.

 

[375Fox]

The more I have researched this the bigger the bad feeling grows. If you research Carbon Ark and Wilderness who used to be Wilderness Safaris who manage now 6 million acres. The press releases state “The areas have been meaningfully degraded by logging for charcoal production, as well as burning for farming and hunting.” The degrading by hunting is a clue. They are out bidding many of the top GMA concessions currently and are allowing hunting but I would not hold your breath that this will continue.

I think you are looking for reasons to validate your thoughts. It appears in general, they are neutral towards hunting, not anti, not pro, it’s not a bad thing if they recognize hunting as an added revenue stream and the carbon offset scam creates more value from an area. Calling legal hunting and poaching by the same term is unfortunately common among non-hunters. Until they do something that says anti-hunting, I don’t see a reason to classify them as that and push them into that camp or draw awareness to the antis they are allowing hunting.

 

[Tucketed]

@375Fox, gotcha understand and hope you’re correct. I just get the shivers when I see the word “green” in this context