Great report, thanks! Yes, carbon credits must not count toward "Net-Zero" goals. All of Nature was already fully engaged in sequestering carbon, even without human emissions = there is no surplus amount of that activity available for sale! Not cutting down a forest merely restores that previous balance, nothing is available to sell as an offset. I can't see why this is so difficult to understand. And at this point in time, burning "biofuels" instead of fossil fuels has no advantage, there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere to have room to burn any substance at all. As well, since nobody is serious about getting off fossil fuels, if you burn biofuels you have just left more fossil fuels for others to burn, and burn they will.
Great report, thanks! Yes, carbon credits must not count toward "Net-Zero" goals. All of Nature was already fully engaged in sequestering carbon, even without human emissions = there is no surplus amount of that activity available for sale! Not cutting down a forest merely restores that previous balance, nothing is available to sell as an offset. I can't see why this is so difficult to understand. And at this point in time, burning "biofuels" instead of fossil fuels has no advantage, there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere to have room to burn any substance at all. As well, since nobody is serious about getting off fossil fuels, if you burn biofuels you have just left more fossil fuels for others to burn, and burn they will.