>>"Offsets prevent 110 million tones of carbon emissions and support the local communities in tenure registration, scholarship funding for higher education, and ecotourism projects."
No they don't—110 million tons of forest are NOT being cut down annually, and none of that other nonsense has **ANY** relevance on addressing (or stopping) c…
>>"Offsets prevent 110 million tones of carbon emissions and support the local communities in tenure registration, scholarship funding for higher education, and ecotourism projects."
No they don't—110 million tons of forest are NOT being cut down annually, and none of that other nonsense has **ANY** relevance on addressing (or stopping) climate change. It's nothing more than a scheme to divert money from one intended goal to fund others that wouldn't otherwise receive adequate funding but is done so by way of NGO's and corporate fuzzy accounting via greenwashing.
>>"Well, according to the regulators of these projects, these carbon savings are valid."
I don't believe it. If you're planting a tree, do you count it as the POTENTIAL carbon uptake based on what the mature size will be, or do you base it on CURRENT biomass? Likewise fashion with wetland restoration or any of these other feel-good means of "offsetting" which has been proven to not be accurate. Even WaPo says they're a scam:
>>"Offsets prevent 110 million tones of carbon emissions and support the local communities in tenure registration, scholarship funding for higher education, and ecotourism projects."
No they don't—110 million tons of forest are NOT being cut down annually, and none of that other nonsense has **ANY** relevance on addressing (or stopping) climate change. It's nothing more than a scheme to divert money from one intended goal to fund others that wouldn't otherwise receive adequate funding but is done so by way of NGO's and corporate fuzzy accounting via greenwashing.
Well, according to the regulators of these projects, these carbon savings are valid.
>>"Well, according to the regulators of these projects, these carbon savings are valid."
I don't believe it. If you're planting a tree, do you count it as the POTENTIAL carbon uptake based on what the mature size will be, or do you base it on CURRENT biomass? Likewise fashion with wetland restoration or any of these other feel-good means of "offsetting" which has been proven to not be accurate. Even WaPo says they're a scam:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2023/04/17/carbon-offsets-flights-airlines/