Thread by @doreenstabinsky

This statement is wrong, misleading, and dangerous. A thread 1/

https://twitter.com/ConversationEDU/status/1447427376451837956

With offsets, one entity continues to emit while another is paid to do something nice for the climate. #Offsets don't stop emissions. Offsets are the opposite of reducing emissions. 2/

The author seems to confuse #offsets with #removals. Don't do this. Yes, removals in forests and fields and grasslands are important to staying below 1.5C. But these are not offsets.

An #offset is when @Shell says its LNG is "#carbonneutral" because it paid someone to plant trees somewhere. 4/

#offsetting is more than controversial. It's dangerous. The #IPCC says we can only put about 300 Gt CO2 more into the atmosphere and have an 83% chance of staying below 1.5C of warming. #offsets enable emissions to continue. 5/

The super small size of the remaining budget means that fossil emissions must end and we must enhance ecosystem removals. 6/

The super small amount of carbon that nature can sequester -- maybe around 100 Gt C over the entire century -- means we can't count on many removals. And those removals are going to kick in in the second half of the century. And they are a one-time thing. 7/

So we absolutely have to stop fossil emissions to have a chance at achieving what the #IPCC calls "#netzero." You can't get to zero if you keep emitting. You can't get to zero with #offsetting, because offsets are all about continued emissions. 8/

Please don't confuse #offsets with #removals. At best it's misleading. But we are in the midst of a climate crisis and wrong and misleading arguments about #offsetting are just plain dangerous. 9/