I just ordered something from Galaxus, and as always, when buying on Galaxus, they propose to make a "climate contribution". I never actually checked what it was, and always thought it was legit.
There was actually a post some years ago about that: https://www.reddit.com/r/Switzerland/comments/w99xl8/on_digitec_you_can_pay_235_chf_extra_to/
Since then, there has been more news about South Pole, and more info about where the money is going. Galaxus generously take 10% of that contribution as "administrative fee"
Galaxus uses 10 per cent of the climate contributions to cover the costs of operating and developing this climate contribution service.
Plus, the company they’re using to "offset" the CO2 is also taking a significant part of the contribution (they claim 10-30%, I think it’s quite safe to assume it’s more 30% than 10%).
And up to now, this company has been unable to prove any impact of its actions: https://www.nzz.ch/english/profit-over-planet-employees-urge-reform-at-worlds-major-climate-player-south-pole-ld.1747330
From the employees of the company:
«The message to the public is that the company wants to achieve real CO2 savings for everyone and create more transparency in the CO2 market.»
However, there is less and less evidence of this in the company’s strategy and in its day-to-day business, according to the letter. Instead, it says, the company puts profit above its founding principles.
Also an interesting quote from The New Yorker:
One founder of the carbon firm South Pole resigned after developing doubts about offsetting. “It’s just paper credits,” he said.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/23/the-great-cash-for-carbon-hustle
Note also that their picture is misleading, as it claims 70-90% goes to the project, hiding that Galaxus takes its 10% share before anything else. On a 100CHF contribution, Galaxus first takes 10CHF, sends 90CHF south Pole, which likely takes 27CHF on that (the max in their 10-30% range), leaving 63CHF to the project. So about 37% of the contribution goes as admin profit, and 63% to the actual project. And on top of that, the projects have shown to be mostly worthless.
Don’t waste your money, always disable that contribution, it has no impact. If Galaxus really wanted to do anything about climate, they would at least waive their admin fee (and also stop stuffing loads of plastic in oversized boxes)
Galaxus and climate contribution
byu/Internal_Leke inSwitzerland
Posted by Internal_Leke
11 Comments
Pay for absolution schemes that would make middle age catholic church jealous
Those claims are total nonsense. It’s as if a mass murderer donated to a cancer charity just to ‘balance the scales.’ He thinks he’s compensated for his crimes and can now continue killing with a clear conscience.
Better donate to actual projects directly.
Frankly I didn’t expect something else. We fuck our environment and there’s really not much we can do about it.
Yes this carbon credit offset certificate stuff is a scam in my opinion.
Paying someone to do something so I don’t have to doesn’t make sense to me when it comes to sustainability.
Many projects supported by certificates seem to be worthless. [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/19/do-carbon-credit-reduce-emissions-greenhouse-gases](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/19/do-carbon-credit-reduce-emissions-greenhouse-gases)
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe)
“A total of 39 of the top 50 emission offset projects, or 78% of them, were categorised as likely junk”
So not every project may be junk, but given how much is skimmed off for administration, and how many projects are likely useless, I doubt our Galaxus contributions do anything. It’s greenwashing.
No shit, wait unilt you discover where money given to any association goes. Some people really look like they were born yesterday
Unfortunately there’s a lot of scams with climate compensation going on, which is really a bummer because in theory it’s a good thing.
I remember watching a documentary (I think it was [this one here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpRMNelV_Fg)) about Germany doing projects in China. Lots of money paid out to a long chain of “managing” companies – and **zero** (or close to zero) things being actually done for the climate. Just scammers pockets being lined.
You are better off contribuiting directly to charities and organizations that are reputable and have some sort of transparency policy. Find a project you deem important and contribuite directly. Most organizations struggle with consistent funding, so if you can, I would do a reaccurring yearly/monthly donation.
Carbon offsetting is more ore less greenwashing, It’s almost always hard to quantify the positive impact of reforestation and afforestation projects, while there are reputable ones, there also are really bad ones that just plant monocoltures of fast growing trees, which often are biodiversity deserts and other than carbon sequestration offer little benefit to the ecosystem they are in.
Plenty of NGO in Geneva are there to spend it 100% on “engagement events” meaning inviting top donors to lush dinners with a quick powerpoint at the start. You get ESG ratings and a nice ski holiday for the price of one.
Financing any of these through the green tax on Galaxus will bring you joy-joy feelings, that’s what you’re buying.
shocked pickachu face
South Pole and their non-action aside, 63% of the money reaching the intented goal is actually quite a good ratio.
You need paid professionals at market rate to implement the charity, and for marketing to reach people (like a partnership with Galaxus) and that costs a lot of money.
In the end, what does more good, a charity that manages to raise 10 mil in funds and spends 6 millions on the cause, or some volunteer organisation with high turnover, raising 20 thousand and giving 20 thousand?