The Carbon Colonial Question: Why Offsetting Emissions in Paris by Planting Trees in Congo Doesn’t Add Up
Consider this: A company in Paris emits carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. To cancel out the harm, it pays to plant trees in Congo.
But does it truly cancel out? And cancel out for whom?
As the climate crisis deepens, the global North has championed carbon offsetting as a "solution"—a system in which emissions in one part of the world can be "neutralized" by climate-positive actions somewhere else. On paper, this sounds like a fair exchange. In practice, however, it exposes a deeper, troubling reality: carbon colonialism.
What Is Carbon Colonialism?
Carbon colonialism refers to the practice where wealthy countries or corporations continue polluting while outsourcing their environmental responsibilities to poorer nations. These arrangements often involve tree-planting schemes, land purchases, or conservation programs in the Global South—especially in African countries—meant to “offset” emissions made elsewhere.
This logic reinforces the same historical imbalance that defined the colonial era: the Global North extracts and exploits, while the Global South absorbs the cost.
The Myth of a Balanced Equation
Carbon offsetting relies on the idea that one ton of carbon emitted here can be canceled by one ton sequestered somewhere else. But this transactional thinking ignores a few inconvenient truths:
In short, carbon offsets may look good on balance sheets but do little to change the reality of ongoing pollution or structural inequality.
Africa: The World's Green Pawn?
Africa emits just 3% of global carbon emissions. Yet it has become a central target of offsetting projects. Why?
Because land is cheap. Regulation is weak. And governments—desperate for foreign investment—often welcome these deals with open arms. But the long-term costs are borne by African people, their forests, and their future.
Take the Congo Basin, often dubbed the "second lung of the Earth" after the Amazon. Multinational corporations pour money into reforestation and carbon offset programs there, all while continuing high-emission operations in Europe and North America. Meanwhile, local communities face restrictions on land use, farming, or even access to ancestral forests in the name of “saving the planet.”
What’s the Real Cost of Carbon Offsets?
The problem isn’t tree-planting itself. Forest restoration is essential for biodiversity, water regulation, and climate resilience. But when these programs are used as moral cover for continued emissions, we must ask: whose planet are we really saving?
Real climate justice means:
Toward True Climate Equity
We cannot plant our way out of the climate crisis. Nor can we export environmental responsibility to those least responsible for the problem.
If the Global North is serious about solving climate change, it must stop treating Africa as a carbon sink. Climate justice demands shared accountability, mutual respect, and honest solutions—not more extractive schemes in green clothing.
The planet doesn't need more PR-friendly offset programs. It needs systemic change.
Let’s call it what it is. It’s not carbon math. It’s carbon fiction.
🔗 Join the conversation. Share your thoughts on carbon offsets and climate justice below.
#CarbonColonialism #ClimateJustice #Sustainability #AfricaMatters #ClimateInequality #CarbonOffsets #Greenwashing #EnvironmentalJustice #GlobalSouth #LinkedInArticles
Co-Founder of avicoro | Business Development | Customer Development
2moImportant perspective! Thanks for raising it. I believe the issue isn’t offsets per se, but how they’re designed and governed. With transparency, permanence, and real community benefit, high-integrity projects can restore ecosystems, support livelihoods, and complement (not replace) emission cuts at the source.