Besides all the problem with CO2 accounting that the article talks about, what actually happens when you go a few levels down the food chain of the global economy and you pay those people to stop producing?
If you buy CO2 certificates from the Amazon rain forest: those people were cutting down wood for use in construction and to clear up land for farming. What happens then when those activities are stopped? The demand for housing and food is still there.
If you force shepherds to scale down their herds to allow the vegetation to grow back, what happens to the demand for food? The demand is still there?
CO2 accounting seems to me to be intractable. If you buy certificates and give these people cold hard cash, it does not remove the demand for whatever those people were producing. So then, the supply will shift to other areas and the CO2 emissions will shift with it.
If you buy CO2 certificates from the Amazon rain forest: those people were cutting down wood for use in construction and to clear up land for farming. What happens then when those activities are stopped? The demand for housing and food is still there.
If you force shepherds to scale down their herds to allow the vegetation to grow back, what happens to the demand for food? The demand is still there?
CO2 accounting seems to me to be intractable. If you buy certificates and give these people cold hard cash, it does not remove the demand for whatever those people were producing. So then, the supply will shift to other areas and the CO2 emissions will shift with it.
Am I wrong in my thinking?