Ethos

Big Tree Climate Fund is a company that is defined by its Ethos.  Below are our stances on several defining issues.

 

Solutions to preventing further Climate Change.  Big Tree Climate Fund believes that long term solutions to Climate Change can only come about through the inspired desire to find sustainable answers to underlying root causes which are the drivers of this global malady.  There is no single solution to Climate Change.  The forces which drive this issue are unique and varied; existing on both sides of the equator, in business, recreation and rest.  As the drivers of Climate Change are intensly varied, so too must be the strategies for returning to balance.

Each community approached has its own needs and motivations.

Each environment assessed its own interwoven relationships.

Each economic system studied has its own complex regional associations.

Within these, the key focus areas: Community, Environment, Economy.  This is where the true answers to Climate Change lie.  Solutions to unique local issues will create in it’s wake a return to balance and a major change in the global trend of Climate Change.  It is for these reasons that we focus our energy on developing and supporting small scale, community specific, emission reduction projects.

 

The concept of Carbon Neutral.  Big Tree believes that the term Carbon Neutral must be used very carefully and can be used inappropriately as a form of greenwashing.  

The concept, to reduce one’s carbon footprint to zero or to be responsible for no net emissions, is powerful and admirable.  Companies that achieve true carbon neutrality are making a powerful statement in regards to their commitment to environmental stewardship and sustainability.  They express themselves to their investors, employees, and customers as leaders in taking action to addressing climate change.

The spirit and practice of achieving carbon neutrality can create challenges, however.  For example, it is possible for a company to achieve neutrality without engaging in any internal emissions reductions but by solely purchasing carbon offsets.  This goes against the spirit of the concept.  A claim to carbon neutrality should always be accompanied by a commitment to internal emissions reductions.  Additionally, there is no broadly accepted definition of carbon neutrality and therefore there is nothing to judge the claims against.  Also, in practice, it is very difficult to accurately assess one’s actual carbon footprint.  The issue lies primarily in boundaries.  It can be extremely difficult to assess where one entity’s responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions ends and another’s begins.  For example, should an entity that is having a container shipped be responsible for the resulting emissions or should the shipping company?  These are the Scope 3, or indirect emissions, and they represent many of the “upstream” and “downstream” impacts of a person or company’s existence.  

Big Tree therefore recommends that any campaign toward achieving carbon neutrality be comprehensive, transparent, and that the GHG inventory be verified by a third party and generously include scope 3 (indirect) emissions for which a company is obviously responsible.

 

Landfill Methane Projects.  We believe that the money from the sale of carbon offsets should be spent on projects that yield the greatest overall benefit; according to Big Tree Climate Fund, landfill methane destruction projects do not fall into this category.  Sure they are an easy and relatively cheap way to bring carbon offsets to market (that’s why so many companies are selling them), and the emissions from landfills  should be addressed, but the offsets do not meet the Big Tree criteria for holistic quality.

First of all, methane is a byproduct of the landfill business.  Do other polluters get paid to reduce their pollution?  No (or they shouldn’t).  Landfills are profitable as is and should not make more money by doing what they should do anyway.  Beyond that, landfill operators can make extra money by capturing the methane, and then generating and selling electricity.   Should they get even more money from their pollution by selling carbon offsets?  No.  Finally, we believe generating revenue from selling carbon credits would create a perverse incentive for landfills to grow in size.  We should be trying to reduce the amount of garbage that goes into landfills, not making more money by the creation of more garbage.  We, and our recycling partners, believe that landfill methane capture and destruction (preferably through electricity generation) should be required common practice, not rewarded by selling carbon offsets.

 

Livestock Methane Projects.  Similar to landfill methane projects (see above), methane is a by-product of large livestock operations.  These operations should be responsible for cleaning up their own mess, not getting paid to do it.  Lucky for them, their mess can be captured (Big Tree believes it should required to do so) and then flared to generate electricity, which can be used by their operation or sold to the utility.  They can already make money with their mess, should they make more by selling carbon offsets?  We don’t believe so.

Also, the sale of carbon offsets creates an incentive to grow the size of their operations, to make more methane, to sell more offsets.  Not good in our books.  Plus, and this is where our softer side emerges, we are ethically opposed to the conditions in these livestock operations.  Even some of the so-called family farms have huge herds that live in inhumane conditions.  We would rather see everyone eat a little less meat and support smaller grass-fed operations.  FYI, if the average American became a vegetarian they would reduce their carbon footprint by the same amount as if they switched to driving a hybrid. 

 

Forestry Projects.  Big Tree Climate Fund DOES support forestry projects.  Deforestation accounts for about 20% of the world greenhouse gas emissions, that is more than all the world’s transportation combined!  Trees are vast reservoirs of CO2, have been called “the lungs of the earth” and are important for the preservation of natural habitats and for local soil, climate, soil and watershed protection.  Not only that, but growing trees also have the ability to sequester CO2 from the atmosphere, potentially reversing some of our previous impacts.  Finally, many forests are intimately connected to their surrounding communities and supporting a mutually beneficial solution to deforestation can also benefit people who depend on the forests for their livelihood.

In light of all these benefits, Big Tree supports and develops avoided deforestation and reforestation projects.  The issues associated with forestry carbon projects, primarily the threat of impermanence, we feel can be adequately dealt with through the use of “risk buffers” and other tools that insure against potential threats.  Big Tree supports and offers forestry projects that have been validated, monitored and verified by accredited third party verification and certification bodies in order to ensure risks, the measurement of the carbon stocks and other aspects of the projects have been legitimized.