We’ve seen this movie before.
Global leaders come together to tackle an urgent crisis. The science is clear, the stakes are high, the public is demanding action.
And yet, instead of building solutions that match the scale of the challenge, the talks collapse under the weight of false choices.
That was the story in Geneva last month, where efforts to craft the first global plastic treaty fell apart.
Countries framed the problem as a zero-sum game: tackle waste or curb production, regulate industry or protect jobs, make voluntary pledges or establish binding rules.
That “or” mindset made consensus impossible. The result? No deal, and no path forward.
We have been seeing the same pattern in climate negotiations for decades. As a result, climate action has always appeared to be a trade-off: economic growth or cutting emissions, clean air or jobs, national sovereignty or global responsibility.
That “or” framing created paralysis, leading to years of delay, rising emissions and temperatures, and a narrowing window to act.
Add to this economic decline and increased emissions, job losses and polluted air, and a lack of leadership, and we have a lose-lose-lose world.
And they grew to become far more than a stopgap, precisely because they embraced the “and” logic the negotiations had rejected.
Today, carbon markets deliver both ambition and pragmatism, clean air and jobs, economic growth and reduced emissions.
They respect national sovereignty and are globally fungible. Further, they reduce emissions and protect forests, support local people and attract private investment.
Carbon markets prove that progress comes when we reject false choices and act on multiple fronts at once.
And yet, we have once again tied ourselves into the knot of the “and/or” debate. Should we prioritize nature-based solutions or technological innovation? Should we focus on reducing emissions at the source or removing them from the atmosphere? Should we expect corporations to reduce emissions or offset them by purchasing carbon credits?
Too often, these questions get framed in a binary manner, when the reality is that we need all available solutions.
Nature-based solutions work with the natural infrastructure that already exists to mitigate climate change impactfully and cost-effectively while providing additional key benefits for people and the environment.
Energy and industrial approaches are critical because they address many key functions that underpin our lives, such as electricity generation and cooking practices.
Carbon removal approaches permanently pull emissions from the atmosphere, while activities that reduce or avoid emissions minimize the greenhouse gases that go into the atmosphere and have a more immediate impact.
Mangrove restoration sequesters carbon and protects coastlines, and biogas projects turn agricultural and municipal waste into clean energy while reducing methane emissions.
All these approaches are essential, because they complement each other’s strengths and offset each other’s weaknesses.
At Verra, we see this every day. Projects registered with the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) Program reduce emissions and improve lives, conserve ecosystems and support sustainable development, channel private capital and deliver public goods. That is what an “and market” looks like in practice.
The failure of the plastic treaty is a warning. False choices lead to deadlock, delay, and defeat.
We don’t have the luxury of watching the same movie again. The next act must be different.
If the world embraces the “and market” mindset, rejecting false choices and building systems that deliver multiple benefits at once, we can write a new script: one where markets are not the enemy of ambition but the engine of it.
Because the stakes are too high, the timeline is too short, and the costs of failure are too great.
We cannot keep producing the same script. It is time to change the ending.
Mandy Rambharos is the chief executive officer of Verra.