> Transactions like this undercut the basic concept behind carbon offsets—that they should fund green projects that wouldn’t be possible without the additional cash they bring.
Is this really the basic concept? I thought it was meant to deliver carbon cutting at the cheapest cost. Redesigning a Delta airlines jet to be electric or make the engine more fuel efficient is $$$$. Now, there is a village in India that uses a coal power plant. It's cheaper for Delta to build a solar power plant in India, shutdown the coal plant, and claim all the carbon output they've reduced in India then to try and build a new airplane.
Capital is therefore efficiently allocated to whatever carbon cutting project is the cheapest, therefore maximizing carbon reduction per dollar spent.
Is this really the basic concept? I thought it was meant to deliver carbon cutting at the cheapest cost. Redesigning a Delta airlines jet to be electric or make the engine more fuel efficient is $$$$. Now, there is a village in India that uses a coal power plant. It's cheaper for Delta to build a solar power plant in India, shutdown the coal plant, and claim all the carbon output they've reduced in India then to try and build a new airplane.
Capital is therefore efficiently allocated to whatever carbon cutting project is the cheapest, therefore maximizing carbon reduction per dollar spent.