'Offset' is not a dirty word! Promoting voluntary carbon markets

“I've been wondering something lately: when did 'offset' become a swear word? Should I write it as off***? The extent to which offsets are downplayed in much of the decarbonisation debate concerns me, not just me. Offsets are an integral part of any sensible net zero strategy. Without offsets, it is not possible to achieve a net reduction of emissions to zero. However, it seems to be increasingly suggested that offsets should be reserved exclusively for the period when all other decarbonisation options have been exhausted and only residual emissions remain. It seems that then and only then is it acceptable to use them.” Why the Anti-Offset Logic Is Flawed There is a huge flaw in this approach. The term "buying offsets" may be distracting people from what is actually being done - that is, using offsets to direct capital to climate projects and initiatives. If we are to ensure that global warming does not exceed 1.5°C by 2050, we desperately need to decarbonize as quickly as possible and invest in long-term climate solutions. It's not one or the other - it's both, and they should be done in parallel, not sequentially. Buying offsets is essentially a way to invest in climate solutions that are otherwise not commercially viable (or you would just regularly invest alongside your assets to get a return on investment). And more often than not, many of the hardest to monetize opportunities are nature-based solutions like soil and peatland conservation, forest restoration, ocean protection, etc. If we don't support investment in this vital work, natural habitats around the world will pay the price.”