[kisamoto]

Fundamentally I agree but only if choosing to do both, not either or.

To truly reverse the emissions an individual or company has, Carbon Removal is really the only way.

Carbon credits _can_ encourage businesses to reduce their emissions (and if a company has money to help - great!) but reducing a third-parties emissions is not a green-light to justify my own wrongdoings.

If I emit a ton and pay credits to offset a ton, a ton is still out there. If I emit a ton and remove a ton I am at net zero emissions.

[bioipbiop]

> If I emit a ton and pay credits to offset a ton, a ton is still out there

The basic idea is to allow companies to ramp down their emissions by releasing fewer credits each year.

I could see a compromise being that one carbon credit is worth a tonne of carbon emissions, but two tonnes of sequestered carbon. So companies would have to pay for the removal of some factor of what they produce.

[kisamoto]

I like it - having the ability to both support sequestering and the transitioning of others with a single "credit".