Thoughts on John Oliver’s carbon credit segment.

Entering the discussion late. Instead of watching John Oliver's episode from a week ago on carbon offsets and immediately reacting, I thought I'd take the time to read up and reflect.

Some of John Oliver's criticisms are valid. However, on the whole, I think his approach misses the mark on several specifics and, ultimately, the big picture. The phrase "throwing the baby out with the bath water" was the most common phrase I heard in my discussions and research. I believe voluntary carbon offsets have strong potential to contribute to carbon and deforestation reductions.

A few specific thoughts:

-It is widely understood that carbon offsets are the LAST step to achieve Net Zero goals. Companies know this. No one claims that carbon offsets represent the entire solution. While greenwashing is absolutely a problem (think Shell and BP), it's not a carbon offset problem as much as it is a regulatory or standards problem.

-Despite what John Oliver says, there ARE accountability measures (i.e. IC-VCM) in place beyond certification entities like Verra.

-I thought his criticisms that called out groups in the offset space ranged from harsh to unfair. For example, NCX is a start-up that is operating on an innovative financial concept called ton-year accounting. It's an unproven method and NCX remains uncertified. However, I believe their work is fascinating and has potential for positive impact. A critical dialogue about their methodology is necessary... outright dismissal is not.

-Many (most?) projects have mechanisms in place to address leakage (cutting down trees 'next door').

-The forest fire criticism was weird, as these projects actively manage forests, which reduces fire risk. Despite this, most project models account for loss in projections with buffers.