It's an economic bet - the article assumes static pricing for offsets vs mitigation. That's just naive. As there is less rainforest to buy and the last few squ

It's an economic bet - the article assumes static pricing for offsets vs mitigation. That's just naive. As there is less rainforest to buy and the last few squares get more and more expensive. Along the way things like solar, bio, and other green energy continue to become more economical to implement Eventually there will be a tipping point where it's cheaper to move to green than to offset emissions.