I think the conceptual ideal of the offsets marketplace is that it is equivalent to removal, but in practice, I don't think it lives up to that. E.g., as a ske

I think the conceptual ideal of the offsets marketplace is that it is equivalent to removal, but in practice, I don't think it lives up to that. E.g., as a sketchy offset seller, one can sell the promise not to cut down the same tree repeatedly and that dilutes the carbon offset. Or sell credits against a forest you weren't going to harvest anyway. Removing carbon seems fundamentally different -- if the carbon is actually removed as sold, and measured correctly. (What Microsoft is doing isn't selling into the offsets marketplace.) I disagree with your sort of moral argument against buying offsets / removal. I think it's fine to pressure companies into paying for externalities (either via ESG shareholder advocacy or regulation) and this is just one flavor of that.