McKinsey & Company, known for its consulting services to major energy companies, played a significant role in the preparations for the African Climate Summit in Nairobi. A confidential document obtained by AFP reveals McKinsey’s impetus for the adoption of the African Carbon Markets Initiative (ACMI), aimed at establishing a $6 billion carbon credit market in Africa. This document, designed to influence the summit agenda, highlights carbon credits as a key solution for carbon neutrality, despite the controversies surrounding their effectiveness.
Carbon Credits: A Controversial Solution
Carbon credits are presented as a way for companies to offset their CO2 emissions by supporting environmental projects. However, studies and journalistic investigations have raised doubts about their real effectiveness, with cases of overestimated environmental benefits. These credits are often criticized as a loophole allowing companies to continue their polluting activities without reducing their emissions.
Conflicts of Interest and Civil Society Reactions
McKinsey’s involvement in the planning of the summit was criticized as a conflict of interest, given its links with the fossil fuel industry. Over 500 civil society organizations protested against McKinsey’s undue influence, claiming that the company had shaped the summit agenda in favor of its clients. Mohamed Adow, from Power Shift Africa, pointed out that McKinsey had a vested interest in the trade agreements that could result from the adoption of ACMI.
Response from McKinsey and the Kenyan Government
Faced with the allegations, McKinsey denied any wrongdoing, presenting itself as a “technical partner”. The Kenyan government, represented by Environment Minister Soipan Tuya, also denied undue influence from McKinsey, claiming that the documents had been approved by the African Climate Summit and the government. However, some members of the advisory group expressed ignorance of McKinsey’s role and criticized the gap between McKinsey’s proposals and African priorities.
Impact on the Carbon Credit Market and COP28
The summit resulted in significant financial commitments for carbon offset projects, despite criticism of their environmental and social impact. COP28 in Dubai failed to regulate this fast-growing market, exacerbating the risks of greenwashing. The case of South Pole, which withdrew from a forest protection program in Zimbabwe, illustrates the challenges and controversies associated with these credits.
McKinsey’s involvement in the promotion of carbon credits at COP28 reveals the complexities and challenges associated with consulting firms’ influence in climate policy, calling for greater regulation and transparency.
