Also, feels a bit cheeky that non carbon benefits are ignored: > Assessing the health, social, economic or other local benefits – or harms – were beyond the sc

Also, feels a bit cheeky that non carbon benefits are ignored: > Assessing the health, social, economic or other local benefits – or harms – were beyond the scope of this investigation and did not influence the classification But then non carbon problems are mentioned: > In some cases large dams have been associated with land disputes, displacement, increased poverty and environmental damage To be clear, I think we should be moving away from fossil fuels as fast as possible as that's the core cause of climate change and we have alternatives. I don't think this is a particularly fair take on the imperfect tool of voluntary carbon markets, because "tool is imperfect and can be improved" isn't a good headline.