By Mathew Carr

I’m saying in the headline that emission reduction credits should be seen as more “important” than carbon dioxide removal (CDR) credits …and so they should probably be seen by markets as more “valuable”.

Peters did not quite say this, but I’m saying it is an implication of what he is saying. This is what he did say:

Must-read thread on Twitter

"We need both emission reductions & Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)" is the duality I find increasingly problematic.

The problem is that we aren't reducing emissions. The statement should be conditional: "If we have rapid emission reductions, then we need both"

1/ pic.twitter.com/Zx10AUhOXB

— Glen Peters (@Peters_Glen) February 3, 2023

Bloomberg Sets Out Two Stupidly Stark Carbon-Offset Scenarios: $1t vs $15b Per Year (2)