One view is that most activity in the voluntary carbon markets doesn't achieve climate benefits that are real and equivalent to CO2 emissions. Eliminating that fiction focuses more attention on reductions (rather than outsourcing) and more accurately prices the level of effort required.

Is the counterpoint that by spending $30M a year, they’re not spending billions on better things? Doesn’t seem that realistic

Thx. I’m new to carbon world, coming from regulated water, so still forming my opinions of VCM. My basic frame tho is that given it’s voluntary and a majority of global companies are *not* participating in offsets or ESG or emissions reductions at all, $30M/yr from Shell is a lot better than $0.