> There sort of is though, and both carbon off-setters and this study claim that they can
What they're talking about is determining if you've paid someone to not burn down a forest and then they do it even after taking the money. Which you could conceivably verify.
The problem is when someone already intends not to burn down a forest, or do whichever other thing counts for credits. Then they can sell credits in exchange for proceeding with their existing intentions. Everyone already intending to do any of those things can profit from selling the credits, so they do and the market contains tons of credits that are not actually making any difference.
> Also there is plenty of demand in this market, even dodgy credits are worth much more than $2
Offset are worth less than $2. "Credits" in the EU are worth significantly more, because they use "cap and trade", which results in significant carbon pricing but is manifestly unjust because it directly rewards companies for having been the largest polluters.
What they're talking about is determining if you've paid someone to not burn down a forest and then they do it even after taking the money. Which you could conceivably verify.
The problem is when someone already intends not to burn down a forest, or do whichever other thing counts for credits. Then they can sell credits in exchange for proceeding with their existing intentions. Everyone already intending to do any of those things can profit from selling the credits, so they do and the market contains tons of credits that are not actually making any difference.
> Also there is plenty of demand in this market, even dodgy credits are worth much more than $2
https://carboncredits.com/carbon-prices-today/
Offset are worth less than $2. "Credits" in the EU are worth significantly more, because they use "cap and trade", which results in significant carbon pricing but is manifestly unjust because it directly rewards companies for having been the largest polluters.