Does the Paris Agreement Favour Human Rights Atrocities Over Machines?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Article 6.4 apparently rejects machine based carbon sequestration in favour of poor nation carbon reserves, which have a hideous baggage of human rights violations.

Which Deserves a Carbon Credit – Nature or Technology?

ByJennifer L
June 5, 2023

The United Nations (UN) has drafted a document that will define a new global carbon market for years to come, which seems to favor nature-based solutions over technological or engineered carbon removals.

The UN panel casts doubt on the promise of using machines to remove CO2 and tackle the climate crisis. This is sending shock waves through the rising carbon dioxide removal (CDR) industry, which scientists said is critical to reduce global warming. 

The high-profile group shots a simple yet baffling question: nature vs. technology – which deserves a carbon credit?

Carbon Removals Don’t Serve Paris’ Article 6.4?

The Biden administration has started pumping billions of dollars into carbon removal solutions to help establish the CDR industry in the U.S. Large companies across sectors have also been betting their money in this emerging industry. The likes of AppleMicrosoftStripe, and even JPMorgan have invested hundreds of millions in carbon removal credits. 

But the UN panel appears to prefer the natural ways of capturing CO2. The group is questioning the technical and economic viability of startups seeking to remove carbon that’s already in the atmosphere. In their note, the panel wrote:

“Engineering-based removal activities are technologically and economically unproven, especially at scale, and pose unknown environmental and social risks. These activities do not contribute to sustainable development, are not suitable for implementation in the developing countries and do not contribute to reducing the global mitigation costs.”

In short, they believe that CDR solutions are not serving any of the goals of the Article 6.4 provision. 

A Global Carbon Trading System

The Paris Agreement on climate change contains a specific provision calling for the creation of an international carbon trading program. It’s officially referred to as Article 6.4.

Read more:

Removing CO2 from the air by natural or artificial means is an absurd and damaging waste of resources. CO2 is plant food – we need more CO2, not less, to feed the billions of people who still go to bed hungry every night.

But discriminating against some forms of carbon removal is an even greater absurdity, and in my opinion betrays a deeper agenda.

If rich countries earn carbon credits from removal and sequestration machines, there is no opportunity for the kleptocrats who run poor countries to help themselves to rich country tax money.

Natural carbon credits offer far more opportunities to the Wabenzi. All they have to do is commit a few war crimes, massacres, mass rapes and human rights atrocities, maybe do a little ethnic cleansing, and they have a pristine carbon credit forest, which can earn substantial sums of hard currency just by existing.

And if a few locals start logging the forest, the Wabenzi can either ignore the carbon credit violations, or send in a carbon credit funded militia armed with machine guns, grenades and rocket launchers to brutalise and clear out the native intruders, from lands they once thought were their homes.

One day history will look back on this hideous period of neo-colonial carbon exploitation, and wonder why nobody did anything to stop it. I doubt future historians will find explanations which make any kind of sense. I certainly don’t have any kind of reasonable answer to that question, other than money, greed and opportunity.

Maybe I’m wrong, and the UN just don’t like machines. But whatever their thinking, the consequences of this interpretation of the Paris Agreement are just as dire, for anyone who gets in the way of poor nation kleptocrats making a little carbon sequestration cash.

5 14 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 7, 2023 10:11 am

The UN can’t stop a war in a tin pot, corrupt nation on the European continent.

What on earth makes its officials think they can stop the climate changing?

Reply to  HotScot
June 7, 2023 10:23 am

What on earth makes its officials think they can stop the climate changing?

Who thinks that’s their real motive? Aren’t they just exploiting the ruling class media-created public fears to generate tsunamis of tax dollars for experienced insiders to siphon off as booty?

Peta of Newark
Reply to  HotScot
June 7, 2023 10:25 am

Magical Thinking makes them think that.

It’s very very simple how to stop CO2 levels rising – stop growing annual plants and grow perennials instead.
It’s written into the Keeling Curve – the instruction is right there.

Maybe feed them with a bit of pulverised basalt, shale or anything you can dig out of any volcano anywhere.
Even old concrete would work – if the cement it was made with was itself made of shale, it contains epic plant nutrition.

Reply to  HotScot
June 7, 2023 11:40 am

Your pretty rough on Putin today.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  MarkW
June 7, 2023 12:43 pm

didn’t “W” say, “I looked into his eyes and knew I could trust him” or something like that?

Reply to  HotScot
June 7, 2023 1:24 pm

“The UN can’t stop a war in a tin pot, corrupt nation on the European continent.
What on earth makes its officials think they can stop the climate changing?”
The fact that you think they are at all comparable issues, I would suggest shows your depth of understanding of both.

Reply to  Simon
June 7, 2023 5:21 pm

And I would suggest that HotScot has made an absolutely astute observation about the “way-past-its-use-by-date” useless UN.

C’mon man, it’s deteriorated into a sad retirement home for left-wing bludgers from all over the taxpaying world.

Bryan A
Reply to  Simon
June 7, 2023 7:09 pm

You are correct Simon. They have practically nothing in common. In fact Man can only have any direct influence over the course of the afore mentioned Tin Pot Nation

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  HotScot
June 7, 2023 1:58 pm

What makes ANYONE think that humans can stop the climate from changing?!

Might as well set up an organization to stop the Sun from rising and setting.

Tom Halla
June 7, 2023 10:22 am

As greens despise people, human rights violations are not a consideration.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Tom Halla
June 7, 2023 3:36 pm

A feature, not a bug

June 7, 2023 10:23 am

Net Zero UN by 2025. Sequester the UN. Stop UN pollution worldwide.

June 7, 2023 10:27 am

No, really, how can we stop this evil black C element? It is turning our oceans into acid…our atmosphere into a furnace….OMG!….do something!….call the UN!

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  antigtiff
June 7, 2023 12:45 pm

“turning our oceans into boiling acid”

Al Gore suggested this improvement. 🙂

Bryan A
June 7, 2023 10:35 am

The Green Machine wants nothing to do with Viable Solutions to the NON-PROBLEM of CO2, AKA CO2 free energy sources that allow for maintaining current life styles in Western Civilization, they want solutions that reduce population to vastly reduce consumption and production. Anything that has the potential to reduce human headcount … Trans Sterilization (no births), legal abortion up until delivery day (possibly Post Birth Abortion), child labor (in poor mineral rich countries), slave labor (for cheap solar and wind generation)
Eliminating Most Humans is their ultimate end game

June 7, 2023 10:38 am

OT and maybe in bad taste but couldn’t resist, although I agree with the whole paper, Eric.

As a ship Captain I was used to being able to wield a lot of power over other people if necessary.
I drive a Mercedes-Benz. (16 years old. )
Does that mean I am, or was, a Wabenzi?


June 7, 2023 10:44 am

The UN is a notorious advocate of human rites, Critical Diversity Theory (CDT) (i.e. people… persons interchangeable in color blocs, classes), etc.

Reply to  n.n
June 7, 2023 10:59 am

The UN is a notorious advocate of human rites

I know that was a typo (rights) but, as written, it still rings true

Smart Rock
June 7, 2023 12:03 pm

I certainly don’t have any kind of reasonable answer to that question, other than money, greed and opportunity

Eric, you’ve just explained 97 percent of human activity.

June 7, 2023 12:19 pm

Article 6.4 apparently rejects machine based carbon sequestration in favour of…

Backhanders, of course

Joseph Zorzin
June 7, 2023 12:49 pm

“nature-based solutions”

Such as, a new one the greens offer- stop all forestry- cut no trees ever- their only purpose must be to sequester carbon. It’s called “proforestation”. It’s nuts. It’s a growing movement originating here in Woke-achusetts- the home of many climate alarmist fantasies.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 7, 2023 7:20 pm

That’s how the Canadian wildfires became massive conflagrations. A.k.a. poor forest management. It actually results in far fewer tress and huge death rate of smaller forest flora and fauna.

John V. Wright
June 7, 2023 2:04 pm

Lost for words. These people are Neanderthals…

Rich Davis
Reply to  John V. Wright
June 7, 2023 3:41 pm

How dare you?
-Neanderthal Lives Matter

June 7, 2023 5:57 pm

The UN is a corrupt and criminal organization, the US needs to get out of the UN and the UN needs to get out of the US.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bob
June 7, 2023 7:11 pm

Sorry but I disagree, the US should stay in the UN especially since the US is one of the 5 nations with direct Veto power

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights