Trees definitely do capture CO₂ and sequester it away - that's why we also support them. However planting trees does not make up the majority of offsetting proj

Trees definitely do capture CO₂ and sequester it away - that's why we also support them. However planting trees does not make up the majority of offsetting projects. Offsetting can and does include things like "not cutting down these trees", or "using drones to check trees are alive". Non-tree based offsets include things like "greener stoves" as you mentioned. These all get certified that they do _something_ however the quantity of CO₂ mitigated is vague. Bloomberg actually did a short video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20xMbGkEIQI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20xMbGkEIQI) on how tree based offsets can be abused within the rules set out by the verification systems. On top of this trees take time to reach maturity, die from disease & wildfires releasing their CO₂ and in some cases encourage farmers to deforest to replant for the offset credits. This is all very negative but I am trying to provide the other side of the coin. Trees are not enough to reverse the impact we, as a society, have had on the climate, but they are a very important part and should be supported. Our approach is to use forestation (we also double plant and calculate carbon sequestered over 10 years) in combination with much needed technological solutions to help develop them and bring them down the price curve. Thank you so much for this discussion and your luck. Keep up the great work learning and doing good for the climate.