I agree that offsets based on sequestration, as you mention, are a completely legitimate tool. I mentioned that briefly in the post, but didn't dwell on it as the post was getting too long already.
The deep problem with the more common "avoided emissions" credits is not that they're low quality (e.g. "protecting" a forest that might just burn down) -- though some are indeed low quality. The deep problem is that if I pay you to halt your emissions, who is going to pay me to halt mine? That's the shell game aspect. We start out with two emitters, we halt one, we never do anything about the other. One emitter is "done" because they're no longer emitting, and the other emitter is "done" because they've purchased an offset. The model is broken at its core.
I completely agree with you on avoided emissions. I think these should just not be counted. I just hope that going forward, people don't lump all carbon offsets into one bucket and say "they're all a scam". I feel like we need more regulation here.
I agree that offsets based on sequestration, as you mention, are a completely legitimate tool. I mentioned that briefly in the post, but didn't dwell on it as the post was getting too long already.
The deep problem with the more common "avoided emissions" credits is not that they're low quality (e.g. "protecting" a forest that might just burn down) -- though some are indeed low quality. The deep problem is that if I pay you to halt your emissions, who is going to pay me to halt mine? That's the shell game aspect. We start out with two emitters, we halt one, we never do anything about the other. One emitter is "done" because they're no longer emitting, and the other emitter is "done" because they've purchased an offset. The model is broken at its core.