This article just further hammers in the comparison between carbon offsets and buying indulgences to me. Even at the higher payment-per-acre point, all current forms of carbon offsets seem both too intractable and ineffectual to make much of a difference.<p>I agree with the opposing view in the article that we should consider researching the possibility and ways to make it more effective... but currently, that seems like it should be done as an academic project, not by throwing hundreds of millions of dollars to miscellaneous carbon startups and hoping something changes.<p>Side question: why are many of the article's examples of "carbon friendly" farmers getting major carbon-credit payments part-time cattle ranchers? It seems like helping expand cattle ranching is not a fantastic side-effect of carbon credits, and could cancel out much of the marginal benefit of cover crop planting, etc.
I dont understand why this would be hard. The amount of carbon stored is directly proportional to the height the land rises year by year due to the buried plant matter. Simply use a high accuracy gps lidar combo, compensate for the landmovements by measuring nearby non cultivated land, and the amount of carbon stored is quite simple to compute. If it is small enough you cant tell, its probably effectively zero anyways. But even then you can always grow crops, carbonize them, weigh them and bury them. So whats the problem?