There’s something I’m not understanding in this critique . If somebody buys a whole bunch of trees, that would presumably increase the price of lumber overall a

There’s something I’m not understanding in this critique . If somebody buys a whole bunch of trees, that would presumably increase the price of lumber overall and thus encourage a substitution away from lumber. So somebody certainly could chop down some other trees, but now the opportunity cost would be higher. The more people bidding for trees in order to offset emissions, the greater this opportunity cost would be. Isn’t this precisely a “market solution”?