Ant Forest, I believe that all poor friends will not be strangers.
Since its launch in 2016, the project has transformed the low-carbon behavior of more than 500 million users into an environmental charity that has planted more than 200 million trees. Even the United Nations has awarded it the honor of the Champions of the Earth Award.
Anyway, for this public welfare game (stealing energy to plant trees), bad reviews can cheekily add a lot of people's Alipay friends.
But recently, there has been another saying on the Internet: that is, environmental protection is just a cover, and using the low-carbon behavior of people and trees to make money by trading carbon is the true face of capitalists.
Because it is said that Ant Forest has set up a thing called "personal carbon account" for everyone, the environmental protection behavior of everyone and the trees planted will be converted into corresponding points and deposited into this account.
In the future, Ant Forest can sell these points for huge profits. Behind this, there are trillions of dollars in business!
Among other things, after seeing this statement, the bad reviewer, who is a senior user of Ant Forest, immediately felt a trance, and his mind was full of words such as "capitalist who eats people and does not spit bones", "wolf in sheep's clothing", "vampire who uses public welfare to collect wealth".
Many netizens are also like bad critics, directly calling Ali's pawn, and only want to scold the mother.
Related pickpocketing and analysis videos have also been played in millions.
But after I returned to rationality and consulted the relevant data, I found that things were not as dark as netizens thought.
This time, netizens may really blame the ant forest.
And the bad reviewer also wants to take this incident to talk to everyone about the "carbon transaction" that makes the ants controversial, what is a thing.
First of all, the bad reviewer wants to say that planting trees can really sell money! Of course, it is not wood that is sold, but a thing called "carbon sink".
Because as early as the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, many countries, including China, reached a consensus to control a wave of greenhouse gas emissions, of which carbon dioxide is the main head.
In order to encourage everyone to reduce emissions, the Protocol, in addition to setting the carbon dioxide emission reduction targets of each country, also plans to use carbon dioxide emission rights as a commodity for everyone to buy and sell.
After all, a piece of cake is so big, it is still free. If you don't have enough, you have to buy it from someone else.
How about a buying and selling law?
For example, according to the regulations, cc companies can emit 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year, and in the end, they only emit 800 million tons.
Then the remaining 200 million tons of quota, cc companies can sell to other companies that need it more, so as to make some money.
In addition, everyone knows that trees have the ability to absorb and fix carbon dioxide, which is also known as "carbon sink", so after that, everyone has set the rules, "carbon sink" can also be traded!
That is to say, if cc companies want to emit more carbon dioxide, in addition to buying quotas from other companies that have surplus, they can also buy corresponding "carbon sinks", which is equivalent to planting trees to offset the carbon dioxide.
If you are willful and do not comply with these regulations, even if you can avoid the risk of closing the door, the fine will be far more than the cost of purchasing carbon sinks.
Because of this, the Internet will be spread everywhere: Ant Forest relies on planting trees, has a large number of "carbon sinks" in your hands to buy and sell, and the trees you have worked hard to save energy to plant are sending money to Ma Yun!
But in fact, this does not make sense at all, because there is also a point, that is, the "carbon sink" thing is also racist.
For example, the most planted lemon strips, shuttle trees and sea buckthorn in ant forests belong to the shrub forests used for windproof sand fixation.
Shrublands, on the other hand, are not considered carbon sink afforestation.
And the ant forest official also responded officially yesterday that the ant forest does not have the ownership of these trees, they are donated to the state and society. Ant Forest has never participated in any carbon sink trading, and even if these trees produce carbon sinks in the future, they will all be used for public welfare.
Although environmental protection behaviors such as taking public transportation and walking are indeed recorded in ant forests, the carbon emission reduction of these individuals cannot be traded for the time being, and there is no successful precedent at home and abroad.
And even if you can trade in the future, the income will definitely belong to the user.
Seeing this, some people will definitely ask, then the ant forest really has no commercial value at all, really with love to plant trees?
It is not so pure, after all, the addictive small game of Ant Forest is still helpful for Alipay's open rate, brand image, etc.
The bad critic is not washing the land of the capitalists, saying that 996 is a blessing, creating an inner volume, monopolizing the market, and so on, and I am firmly opposed to it.
Although the capitalists are not necessarily all good people, the ant forest is really not a bad thing.
Of course, there will be rumors of "selling carbon" to make huge profits, and bad critics can still understand it.
Because under the general trend of low carbon and environmental protection, the "selling carbon" thing is indeed very profitable, and this money can also be regarded as a reward for enterprises to embrace green.
Take the automobile as an example, the automobile circle has always had a concept called carbon integration.
Simply put, if you produce a new energy vehicle that meets the standards, you can get positive points. If you want to produce one more fuel car, you need to consume points.
Like "carbon sinks", if the points are not enough, you can find other companies with surplus to buy.
For example, Tesla, which only builds electric vehicles, if it did not sell carbon last year to earn $1.5 billion, the account is still at a loss, which is 1.5 billion US dollars, but it is 2 times the net profit of his car sales last year.
To say that selling carbon is more profitable than selling cars is not an exaggeration.
Since 2016, Tesla has made $3.3 billion by selling carbon credits, and all the way to say, Tesla's money comes from other competitors.
Recently, there is also news that FAW-Volkswagen is ready to spend 3.5 billion yuan to buy points from Tesla and BYD, you know, BYD's net income last year was only 4.2 billion.
It can only be said that compared with selling cars, selling carbon seems to be more like the main business of new energy vehicle companies.
Nowadays, the highest point of manufacturing a new energy vehicle in China can get 5 points, and the price of one point on the market has been speculated to about 3,000 pieces.
In other areas, in order to better achieve the goal of energy conservation and emission reduction, countries around the world have also established carbon emission trading markets.
Among them, for power generation, building materials, steel and other high-energy industries, our country also began a pilot carbon emissions trading market 10 years ago.
In addition, in June this year, the national carbon emission trading market is also about to open for operation, of course, the current carbon trading is still mainly based on enterprises, the first batch of account opening procedures 2225 companies are also about to trade.
Overall, at last year's United Nations General Assembly, we made a solemn commitment to the world to peak carbon by 2030 and be carbon neutral by 2060.
Under this goal, the importance of establishing and improving carbon trading markets is indisputable. Of course, perhaps no one expected that today, "selling carbon" will become such an environmentally friendly and profitable business.