Dear Editor,
I read Prof Mark Huxham's letter in which he promotes the efforts of "good" offsetting projects (Letters, The Guardian, 31st. Jan 2022, link below) and, indeed, the nature-based solutions he describes should certainly not be starved of funding.
But is it right that worthwhile projects should be dependent on such fickle sources as carbon offsets (and/or carbon trading)? Surely there should be a clear conduit of revenue from strong taxation (of damaging factors) through to worthwhile projects.
It is rules (taxation and regulation) that will save the planet. Not smoke and mirrors (carbon trading) and dubious absolution (carbon offsets). We must keep that in mind!
And I was shocked by the next letter (by Mr Mitchell) where the topic of "carbon sequestration" was slipped in: This too is "snake-oil" which dangerously detracts from the main issue which is that we should all be emitting MUCH less CO2! And should be planting and preserving forests. Here, this should not be up to our consumerist or benevolent whims but rather governments should legislate strong measures into place.
Or we can continue to pussy-foot around and watch the planet fry!
Regards
