Multidimensional = Orthogonality

Or: why your carbon project can't just sprinkle biodiversity on top and charge more

OMG, if I get another run-of-the-mill extractive carbon intermediary telling me they are going to "just throw biodiversity measurements" on top of a carbon project to radically increase their profit share for NO ACTUAL WORK I think I'm going to scream. (Or write one of my signature all-caps rants 😵).

Why your non-native eucalyptus plantation is an ecological disaster, and you shouldn’t get biodiversity revenue for it, you should be biodiversity-fined for it.

First, SEPARATE MEASUREMENTS GUYS. The whole point of adding biodiversity to carbon metrics on an ecosystem is to CLEAN IT UP. If it’s the same measurements, IT DOESN’T EXPOSE THE BAD CARBON PROJECTS. (In nerd speak, the data needs to be orthogonal to give a multidimensional snapshot).

(In uber-nerd, orthogonality IS actually a thing independent of whether or not it’s understood.)

Second, didn’t everyone in carbon learn their lesson about inflated, unsubstantiated claims? Really? Are we really going to do this again? Haven’t you guys finally figured out no one wants fake, unscientific, pr-biased crap? People want actual results.

Third, no local community, Indigenous community, or Afro-descendant community wants to work with the current carbon market (okay, Mataven does, Mataven is happy, the rest really are NOT for objectively great reasons). That means carbon projects, carbon developers, carbon certifiers, carbon validators, carbon ratings agencies, and the gazillion carbon intermediaries are also clogging up the value chain to cross-check these intermediaries anymore. They showed up in FORCE to clean up the new biodiversity market, and they DID. So they don’t want this old market coming in with all of its baggage to a new market, which is a HELL of a lot cleaner. Sure, as the Oilers say “If you can play you can play”. But it’s NEW RULES.

Finally, No one wants bundled credits. No reputable data scientist would ever endorse bundled datasets in ecological systems. No one cares about storytelling anymore that’s a zero-sum game of PR funding. Biodiversity and carbon tracking are completely separate activities, and the statistics and science of biodiversity is completely different from carbon. Biodiversity is measured BELOW CANOPY. And you definitely CAN have an empty forest. Carbon is measured from satellite these days, radically reducing costs and scale while exacerbating inequities. You have to pay locals to get biodiversity data, but carbon can be done completely from industrialized city centers, which is why projects in Asia just do a Zoom call with some government official, buy a logging license, and mint their credits with no regard for the Indigenous and local people living there.

NOTE: Reading this, I realize how much it lacks nuance. “No one wants…”, “No one cares…”, “No reputable data scientist would ever endorse…”. Many people have said I’m a jerk and they dislike me for this attitude.

To those many people, I remind them of the power of hyperbole. It doesn’t have to be accurate — to actually be pretty damn accurate. Please refrain from a too-literal reading of my ALL CAPS RANTS.

They are for the rest of us who just burst out of precision like too-tight pants on a power-lift.