> What I am skeptical of is that the offsets really are preventing an equivalent amount of CO2 from being released elsewhere.
I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.
Your concern is quite valid and I would bet that there are a lot of offsets with questionable accounting.
However offsets & sequestration are an essential tool to fight climate change. We can replace gas cars with electric cars, but there are many industries which have not yet developed viable alternatives. To dismiss sequestration means we must either dismantle those industries or give up on fighting climate change.
You can argue for effective auditing and accounting of offsets, but please do not kneecap effective mechanisms for climate change mitigation.
I didn't dismiss sequestration. I expressed doubt that purchasing carbon offsets actually accomplishes what is being advertised (who is actually doing sequestration?). Meanwhile, people are led to believe that it does no harm to fly (or whatever), because they bought offsets.
The harm they are doing is substantially less than flying without offsets.
Sure, but what if the alternative is not flying? If the offsets make someone feel ok about flying when they otherwise wouldn't, they could be a large net negative.
I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.
Your concern is quite valid and I would bet that there are a lot of offsets with questionable accounting.
However offsets & sequestration are an essential tool to fight climate change. We can replace gas cars with electric cars, but there are many industries which have not yet developed viable alternatives. To dismiss sequestration means we must either dismantle those industries or give up on fighting climate change.
You can argue for effective auditing and accounting of offsets, but please do not kneecap effective mechanisms for climate change mitigation.