This explainer from The Point breaks down the difference between carbon credits and carbon offsets, using the New South Wales Government's Great Koala National Park plan as a case study. The Australia Institute's co-CEO Richard Denniss argues that offsets allow polluters to continue emitting while paying for conservation elsewhere, which he calls a contradiction of climate science. The controversy centers on the NSW government receiving federal carbon credits for protecting native forest it already promised to protect. Fossil fuel companies can then buy those credits to offset their emissions. Critics say this amounts to double counting and greenwashing, letting fossil fuel expansion continue under a climate-friendly banner. For anyone tracking carbon market integrity, this article highlights the ongoing debate about whether offset mechanisms actually reduce emissions or just provide cover for continued pollution. It's a concrete example of the tension between market-based climate tools and direct emissions reduction.
