“Answered in the documents:” How Paul Rowett, co-founder of Toco, avoided answering REDD-Monitor’s questions

Toco, digital currency, carbon credits, fossil fuels, consumerism, and capitalism.

In February 2025, REDD-Monitor wrote about a company called Toco and its digital currency backed by carbon credits. I was critical of the idea that we can continue consuming and yet claim that we are taking “climate action today” thanks to the magical thinking of carbon markets.

The main criticism in my post about Toco is that it does nothing to address the key driver of the climate crisis which is burning fossil fuels.

In May 2025, Paul Rowett, co-founder of Toco, wrote a response, which you can read here.

However, Rowett’s response makes no mention of fossil fuels. Neither does it mention consumption. The response avoids most of the the criticisms that levelled at Toco. So I sent some questions to Rowett focussing on the criticisms I made in the original post. I asked for an on-the-record response.

Today I received a response to my questions. Rowett notes that “our views are opposed”.

No shit, Sherlock.

Rowett explains that he appreciates the work REDD-Monitor does, and adds,

I see it as vital in this ecosystem, where let’s be honest, there have been a lot of bad actors. Please understand we are not part of this group. We are authentically trying out best to innovate our way out of this problem.

Rowett writes,

It is worth putting on the record that we are trying our utmost to provide a better way to place a value on our natural world. I am certainly not saying that what we have created is the solution, but at least we are trying to solve this in an authentic and transparent way.

However, Rowett does not answer most of my questions. He writes,

Instead of answering all your specific questions, I would prefer to point you to some reference material that will answer most of your questions, those that are not covered I have attempted to answer below. I fully realise that you and your readers will interpret this in a negative light because of our opposing views, but I have said my piece, engaged in a positive manner and hopefully maintained respect whilst engaging on the subject matter.

He attached two documents to his emailed response:

• Toco Owners Manual: technical overview of the initiative — 16 pages;

• Mitigation Value Assessment Framework (describing how the Carbon Reserve assesses mitigation value) — 28 pages.

Rowett used the phrase “Answered in the documents” in response to seven of my 11 questions.

A quick observation: It is really not a good look to avoid answering questions like this. Rowett could at least have cut and pasted the relevant parts of the documents in answer to the questions.

In his response to my first question, Rowett asks me how I “see the world functioning under the current economic system without using fossil fuels?” The simple answer is that I don’t. The current economic system, otherwise known as capitalism, is a major part of the problem.

Here’s a presentation a gave a few years ago in which I noted that capitalism is the underlying driver of the ecological crisis:

And here’s journalist George Monbiot in 2019 explaining why we have to overthrow capitalism. I’d suggest that Toco fits into the category of “pathetic micro-consumerist bollocks which just isn’t going to get us anywhere”:

Rowett doesn’t answer three of the questions because he says the questions are “heavily based on your opinion”. He argues that “there are many who hold opposing views to yours, and . . . still believe that the carbon markets perform a critical task of transferring capital into carbon mitigating activities”.

Here, instead of addressing the points raised, Rowett is using the logical fallacy: argumentun ad populum. Rowett is attempting to prove that carbon markets work because many people think they work. But the fact that many people agree on something does not prove that what they agree on is true.

Here are my questions, followed by Rowett’s responses, in full and unedited.

REDD-Monitor: My main criticism of Toco is that it does nothing to address the main driver of the climate crisis which is burning fossil fuels. To address the climate crisis we have to stop burning fossil fuels. Anything that allows business as usual to continue is part of the problem. We are way past the point where we can allow emissions to continue in the rich countries in the hope that these will be offset by projects in the Global South. Yet your response makes no mention of fossil fuels. How do you respond to the criticism that Toco does nothing to address extractivism, neoliberalism, carbon colonialism, over-consumption, or the emissions from burning fossil fuels?

Paul Rowett: I agree with you. I also wish that we could reduce dependency on fossil fuels and force the world to stop. However, I simply do not think this is viable. I see your point that “anything that allows business as usual is part of the problem”, there I must disagree, I think people and businesses can live in a more sustainable way. One question for you; how do you see the world functioning under the current economic system without using fossil fuels? What is your ideal plan?

REDD-Monitor: The Carbon Reserve buys carbon offsets from eight projects: three forestry projects in Mexico, the US, and Pakistan; a wind power project in India; a landfill gas project in the US; a methane emissions reduction from dairy cows project in Switzerland; and a biochar project in France. The Carbon Reserve carries out its own rating for these projects. How exactly does the Carbon Reserve carry out its rating process? Does this involve visiting the projects? Why do you not use independent ratings agencies such as Sylvera, BeZero, Callyx Global, or Renoster?

Paul Rowett: Answered in the documents.

REDD-Monitor: In your response to REDD-Monitor’s critique, you claim that Toco offers a “credible, transparent, and regulated alternative to the status quo”. And you claim that the carbon offsets you buy are “high-integrity carbon mitigation assets”. But the carbon offsets that you buy are not regulated — apart from the self-regulation by the carbon trading industry, which has been exposed as being inadequate many times. Your own foundation, the Carbon Reserve, carried out the rating of the carbon offsets that Toco uses. How do you respond to the argument that this is a conflict of interest?

Paul Rowett: Answered in the documents. Regarding the suggestion of a conflict of interest; I see your point. We are a start-up and sat on the board of the carbon reserve to ensure consistency and to reduce early cost. We have replaced, and are actively replacing ourselves, but it takes time to find the right candidates to lead the Carbon Reserve.

REDD-Monitor: As it is, the Carbon Reserve has rated five of your carbon offsetting projects “BBB” which means that the offsets have a “medium probability of achieving 1 tonne of CO₂e mitigation”. That’s not very reassuring, is it?

Paul Rowett: Answered in the documents. Further, it’s a portfolio, so a broad range of assets should be assessed.

REDD-Monitor: In the original post on REDD-Monitor, I listed three serious problems with Toco and the Climate Reserve:

• carbon offsets do not permanently remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere;

• carbon offsets are not gold; and

• carbon offsets are not climate action.

Why did you fail to address any of these points in your response? The following questions look at each of these three points.

Paul Rowett: This is heavily opinion based, stated as fact. I did not feel the need to respond to these opinions. Any thing that I say will be futile because this is your view which you hold strongly. This is the way you see the world, and believe it to be fact. There are a huge number of people who do not hold this view, it is not my place to argue your strongly held opinions.

REDD-Monitor: The issue of permanence has dogged the carbon markets from the beginning. A recent paper in Nature concludes that “A CO₂ storage period of less than 1,000 years is insufficient for neutralising remaining fossil CO₂ emissions.” None of the Carbon Reserve’s projects can guarantee storing CO₂ for anything like that period of time. (With the possible exception of the biochar project — but this supplies less than 1% of Carbon Reserve’s offsets.) Why is Toco not concerned about the permanence issue? And why are you misleading people by stating in your response that “Users and merchants alike may still retire their Toco to permanently offset emissions”? The carbon offsets may well be permanently retired, but any reduction in emissions from the offset projects is all too easily reversed — particularly over a time scale of 1,000 years.

Paul Rowett: Answered in the documents.

REDD-Monitor: Toco proposes using carbon offsets in a similar way that gold was using in the gold standard monetary framework — to create a “new international monetary system (a carbon standard)”. While gold can be seen, weighed, and its quality can be accurately measured, that is simply not true with carbon offsets. As Dan Welch famously put it, “Offsets are an imaginary commodity created by deducting what you hope happens from what you guess would have happened.” A recent paper in Nature Communications found that 84% of carbon offsets are junk. How on earth can you propose using carbon offsets to create a carbon standard when junk offsets have plagued the industry from day one?

Paul Rowett: Answered in the documents. We use the gold standard as an analogy to assist to explain the concept, this should not be taken literally.

REDD-Monitor: In your response to REDD-Monitor’s critique you mention the gold standard idea, without addressing the fact that carbon offsets are a completely different commodity to gold. You argue that there is no need to retire carbon offsets, because they can be held in reserve. How do you prevent double-counting — using the same carbon offset for more than one purchase using tocos? And how can anyone outside the Toco system know whether double-counting has been avoided, apart from that Toco states that it hasn’t?

Paul Rowett: Answered in the documents.

REDD-Monitor: Where does money go that is the difference in the price of tocos and the price of carbon offsets that the Carbon Reserve buys? How is the price of tocos determined? What would happen if the price of carbon offsets dramatically fell, or increased?

Paul Rowett: Answered in the documents.

REDD-Monitor: Offsets are not climate action. Yet Toco claims that, “The more you use toco for your everyday money needs, the more CO₂ you help remove from the atmosphere.” The reality is that we urgently need to reduce our emissions from burning fossil fuels, particularly in rich countries such as Denmark and Switzerland — currently the only two countries where tocos can be used. Climate scientist Kevin Anderson argues that, “Offsetting is worse than doing nothing, it is without scientific legitimacy, is dangerously misleading and leads to a net increase in emissions.” How did you and your co-founder come up with the idea of basing your digital currency on something “without scientific legitimacy”?

Paul Rowett: This question is heavily based on your opinion. Again, there are many who hold opposing views to yours, and with respect to the work you are doing, still believe that the carbon markets perform a critical task of transferring capital into carbon mitigating activities. Again, I fully agree that we need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. We don't know how to solve that problem. While reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, we believe it is also vital to remove as much carbon dioxide as possible. I think it’s a “both” solution rather than either/ or. That is my opinion and belief that I hold, which I appreciate is different to yours.

REDD-Monitor: You write in your response that “The climate crisis is urgent, and we cannot afford to let cynicism paralyze action.” I agree. But we also cannot afford to allow false solutions, such as carbon offsetting, give the impression that we are taking climate action, while in reality allowing the climate crisis to accelerate. Do you agree that we need to stop burning fossil fuels in order to address the climate crisis? And if so, why are you selling a digital currency, backed by carbon offsets, that does nothing to reduce emissions from burning fossil fuels?

Paul Rowett: Again, heavily opinion based. I know you disagree with what we are doing for many reasons. I highly doubt that I will change your mind, so I will not attempt to do so.