I read the paper, they are mostly just being nitpicky.
Which is good. They seem to specialise in data-based approaches to validating whether carbon offsets do what they say.
They're not trying to discredit offsets in general, they're nerding out on subtle details of how these work.
But the story amplifies the nitpicking to the level that other commenters can say "these are just outright fraud with made up numbers" and generally gives a false impression which feeds into the whole climate hoax thing.
When, in reality there's a fairly complex system built-in with certification and incentives and insurance buffers. And that insurance might turn out to not be sufficient, but even if the insurance totally fails, it only then starts to eat away at the benefits.
Note the insurance is pooled and as new projects get added, it spreads the risk further.
Also the trees are spread across 29 states, which diversifies risk from fire and disease.
Which is good. They seem to specialise in data-based approaches to validating whether carbon offsets do what they say.
They're not trying to discredit offsets in general, they're nerding out on subtle details of how these work.
But the story amplifies the nitpicking to the level that other commenters can say "these are just outright fraud with made up numbers" and generally gives a false impression which feeds into the whole climate hoax thing.
When, in reality there's a fairly complex system built-in with certification and incentives and insurance buffers. And that insurance might turn out to not be sufficient, but even if the insurance totally fails, it only then starts to eat away at the benefits.
Note the insurance is pooled and as new projects get added, it spreads the risk further.
Also the trees are spread across 29 states, which diversifies risk from fire and disease.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2022.93042...