Articles on Offsets
Displaying all articles
Voluntary carbon markets have been dogged by controversy, lack of credibility and growing concerns about greenwashing.
Net zero is not as simple as planting a tree. The first step is understanding that tackling climate change, and reaching true net zero, requires returning carbon to the ground.
Large parts of Appalachia’s forests, once owned by coal companies, now make money for investors by storing carbon. But the results bring few jobs or sizable investments for residents.
Small adjustments can make a significant difference.
Nature, everyone agrees, is in trouble. But can Australia’s new market-based mechanism help?
The path of Plibersek’s big agenda stretches far beyond the one-term political horizon – and it’s fraught with dangers.
Millions of dollars have gone into California’s forest carbon offset program – with little new carbon storage to show for it, a new study suggests.
The nature repair market is sold as a good news story: willing land managers benefiting nature with support from the private sector. But if offsets are part of it, the reality could be very different.
A climate scientist looks at what works and some popular ideas that aren’t as cheap or effective as people hope.
New research finds nature restoration only marginally lowers global warming. This pours cold water on the idea of using carbon offsets to solve the climate crisis.
We cannot claim that inducing others to reduce emissions gives us a moral license to emit in their place.
Yes, trees and soils can absorb and store carbon, but the carbon doesn’t stay stored forever. That’s one of the problems with how net-zero plans for the climate are being designed.
New Zealand has announced a more ambitious pledge to cut emissions, but the commitment relies on buying credits from offshore. There is no system for doing this yet, or for ensuring genuine cuts.












