Yeah, that lost me

The other person infers an offset from the term “carbon neutral,” which they wouldn’t infer from “zero carbon.”

The point about the timber plantation would support this not really counting as an offset, but I don’t know how they calculate that. If the lumber for the pulp would otherwise have come from wild forests, I could see it, but I suspect they wouldn’t. The timber plantation has just figured out a very shrewd way to get paid to sow their own product. Frankly, I think that should be fraud unless they can prove a ratio between trees planted as offsets and wild trees not felled, but I don’t know if that would incentivize them more to maintain loggers in natural forests, which is obviously worse. Maybe logging operations shouldn’t be eligible for carbon offsets regardless of how they’re substantiated?

I worked at an insurance company through covid, so literally yes. It’s not fun and I try not to think about it too long. I was luckily able to quit after about a year and a half, I hope you get out soon.

I don’t mean to be too cynical, but it sounds like anti maskers were good for his business

I don’t know what joyless husk downvoted you, but they should realize that the summary doesn’t prevent anyone from reading the article. People who were going to read it still do, and people who weren’t are now better informed.

Additionally, we all have a thousand things calling our attention at any given moment. It’s fair not to have the bandwidth to read every article.