the long and short of this piece: carbon credits for forest preservation have such a record of failure that even the best examples of it in action struggle to really do anything we could consider...
the long and short of this piece: carbon credits for forest preservation have such a record of failure that even the best examples of it in action struggle to really do anything we could consider tangible, and most example aren't good to begin with and are actually quite bad. the debate mostly seems to rest on whether or not this is because they haven't been implemented at a widespread scale (like people in support of such things say is more representative of why they struggle) or whether they are just completely infeasible no matter what and trying to quantify something that's basically impossible to quantify (what the article seems to come to the conclusion of and which is kinda suggested by how these schemes have so far worked).
the long and short of this piece: carbon credits for forest preservation have such a record of failure that even the best examples of it in action struggle to really do anything we could consider tangible, and most example aren't good to begin with and are actually quite bad. the debate mostly seems to rest on whether or not this is because they haven't been implemented at a widespread scale (like people in support of such things say is more representative of why they struggle) or whether they are just completely infeasible no matter what and trying to quantify something that's basically impossible to quantify (what the article seems to come to the conclusion of and which is kinda suggested by how these schemes have so far worked).