First of all, "Net Zero" is BS, it is 100% spin. It posits that at some future date, the balance between (new) emissions and various counter-emissions are equal. No. We need NO new emissions starting 15 years ago and begin to curtail all emissions ever since, whether from fossil or "bio" fuels.
In the statement: "If the forest is protected instead of destroyed, the managers of the forest can generate carbon credits. These can then be sold to organisations or individuals to offset their carbon pollution," this is an error of logic, a non-sequitur, spread over two sentences as a disguise. The forest was already fully-engaged in absorbing carbon therefore selling offsets on account of its preservation is no different than those selling offsets from Direct Air Capture. There is no net change in atmospheric CO2 levels. Secondly, destroying a forest is a crime against Nature - do you expect a credit in your bank account for deciding to not rob the bank? And how did the polluting corporation get to choose that this particular forest was just sitting there waiting to be its carbon sink, when the forest was already at work absorbing carbon? Yes, "insetting" is simply a re-branding of offsetting. "Onsetting," the initiation of fossil-energy driven civilization, is the problem, and both must be wound down concurrently.
First of all, "Net Zero" is BS, it is 100% spin. It posits that at some future date, the balance between (new) emissions and various counter-emissions are equal. No. We need NO new emissions starting 15 years ago and begin to curtail all emissions ever since, whether from fossil or "bio" fuels.
In the statement: "If the forest is protected instead of destroyed, the managers of the forest can generate carbon credits. These can then be sold to organisations or individuals to offset their carbon pollution," this is an error of logic, a non-sequitur, spread over two sentences as a disguise. The forest was already fully-engaged in absorbing carbon therefore selling offsets on account of its preservation is no different than those selling offsets from Direct Air Capture. There is no net change in atmospheric CO2 levels. Secondly, destroying a forest is a crime against Nature - do you expect a credit in your bank account for deciding to not rob the bank? And how did the polluting corporation get to choose that this particular forest was just sitting there waiting to be its carbon sink, when the forest was already at work absorbing carbon? Yes, "insetting" is simply a re-branding of offsetting. "Onsetting," the initiation of fossil-energy driven civilization, is the problem, and both must be wound down concurrently.