"It has to be done" isn't helped by "throwing money at schemes that don't do what they claim to do on the tin." Especially when, by people doing that, they fee

"It has to be done" isn't helped by "throwing money at schemes that don't do what they claim to do on the tin." Especially when, by people doing that, they feel that they've "solved the problem" and can go on consuming as they have been. To a certain group of people, "carbon offsets" are more or less the old church "indulgences" - permission to {sin, emit} with the consequences covered. And if that money is doing nothing but enriching some people in the middle while not actually doing anything useful ("We'll not cut down this forest... that we we weren't planning to cut down anyway", or "Sure, we'll protect this land... and go clearcut the next mile over because we don't care where the ranch goes"), it's worse than nothing - because you've now "granted permission to emit" while not actually offsetting anything. That's not how it should be, but it's certainly how a lot of people perceive it to be. "Oh, it's fine, it's carbon neutral, I have an offset subscription" vs having to actually face that their carbon emissions aren't being offset. So I don't think it's fair to say that people asking questions about "Is the money being paid doing what it's supposed to actually do?" are pro-carbon or something. There's a lot of outright fraud in that space, and an API that smooths the friction of larger fraud isn't something useful. If you're going the wrong way to your stated destination, going that wrong way faster isn't helpful. Now, can I have all your surplus money to put into solar farms somewhere? Don't ask if they're in coal heavy territory or somewhere with a bunch of nuclear /hydro, it doesn't matter, right? We have to do everything we possibly can! ... except the one thing that would make a difference, which is consume radically less.