That's how we tell the difference between rational environmentalists concerned about future human well being and zealots who just hate the idea of human succeeding above other animals or currently wealthy countries succeeding above other countries. Because if you are the former, you are absolutely in favor of carbon credits, sequestration, geoengineering, nuclear power plants, migrating from coal/oil to natural gas etc. Of course, you would want evidence of safety and effectiveness, but not "it's colonialism" knee jerk reactions.
It could well be that the other alternative for these forests was logging or slash and burn agriculture, in which case the program is working exactly as intended. Or if not, we can criticize it for being ineffective without woke moralizing. Someone needs to make a bid to preserve the forest, and this company made a bid that is apparently higher than alternatives. As carbon credit economy takes off, there will be competition and prices will rise, in turn exposing the limits of carbon offsets and forcing reductions in actual emissions.
It could well be that the other alternative for these forests was logging or slash and burn agriculture, in which case the program is working exactly as intended. Or if not, we can criticize it for being ineffective without woke moralizing. Someone needs to make a bid to preserve the forest, and this company made a bid that is apparently higher than alternatives. As carbon credit economy takes off, there will be competition and prices will rise, in turn exposing the limits of carbon offsets and forcing reductions in actual emissions.