So the fundamental premise of the article seems to be "offsetting via avoidance can't get you to net zero, so it's a bad idea". I agree with the premise (that it can't get you to net zero), but I wonder if it can hep with resource allocation and efficient sequencing? For example we currently don't seem to have a good plan to reduce the carbon emissions of the aviation industry other than "fly much less". And whilst I can certainly get on board with that, it seems unlikely there's going to be the necessary big shift in behaviour (and corresponding shrinkage of the aviation sector) over the next five to ten years.
Meanwhile we do know that things like reducing the carbon emissions of dwellings by improving insulation is relatively straightforward. But individuals often don't have the capital to make those changes themselves (even where it would provide cost savings in the medium term). So if aviation companies were providing money that was redistributed to projects which are short-term viable but lacking the necessary funding, that could make an impact now, even though it doesn't fully solve the long term problem.
Make those contributions mandatory and we have something that looks like a carbon tax used to fund decarbonisation programmes.
Of course, in the end you still need to tackle the hard problems. But artifical carbon sequestration still seems to be very much at the "reasearch project" stage, and whilst creating natural environments that can sequester carbon (forests, bogs, etc.) is undoubtedly a great idea — not just for carbon, but also for habitat creation, biodiversity, staving of desertification, and a host of other reasons — it seems problematic as a form of offsetting for the reasons identified in the article, plus the fact that it operates over a period of decades, so it's almost impossible to create any accountablity if the carbon is not in fact sequestered.
More than that, the fact that increasing tree cover and restoring natural habitats is so important means it's worrying when the funding plan is based on pennance for carbon emissions. We don't want to create a situation where resources for these incredibly important projects start to dry up just because more companies have successfully reduced their corporate emissions (even if they still have product-usage emissions which are usually unaccounted for).
Meanwhile we do know that things like reducing the carbon emissions of dwellings by improving insulation is relatively straightforward. But individuals often don't have the capital to make those changes themselves (even where it would provide cost savings in the medium term). So if aviation companies were providing money that was redistributed to projects which are short-term viable but lacking the necessary funding, that could make an impact now, even though it doesn't fully solve the long term problem.
Make those contributions mandatory and we have something that looks like a carbon tax used to fund decarbonisation programmes.
Of course, in the end you still need to tackle the hard problems. But artifical carbon sequestration still seems to be very much at the "reasearch project" stage, and whilst creating natural environments that can sequester carbon (forests, bogs, etc.) is undoubtedly a great idea — not just for carbon, but also for habitat creation, biodiversity, staving of desertification, and a host of other reasons — it seems problematic as a form of offsetting for the reasons identified in the article, plus the fact that it operates over a period of decades, so it's almost impossible to create any accountablity if the carbon is not in fact sequestered.
More than that, the fact that increasing tree cover and restoring natural habitats is so important means it's worrying when the funding plan is based on pennance for carbon emissions. We don't want to create a situation where resources for these incredibly important projects start to dry up just because more companies have successfully reduced their corporate emissions (even if they still have product-usage emissions which are usually unaccounted for).