<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Action needed to make carbon offsets from tropical forest conservation work for climate change mitigation · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2301.03354/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2301.03354/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Action needed to make carbon offsets from tropical forest conservation work for climate change mitigation — mentioned by whimsicalism</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37603609</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2301.03354:37603609</guid><pubDate>Thu, 21 Sep 2023 20:13:09 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;e: Oh I see, you were talking about the California article I linked, which is by a different author. That said, I think the section you are discussing is just about potential flaws in the causal model and why they think it is unlikely, not their primary reasoning. Maybe a different article, the one I am talking about conducted a causal estimate of the carbon averted using synthetic controls, not at all the argument that you are stating [0]. Again, all of this debate would be easy to end with a controlled trial that non-profits like Verra will never do because of what they would reveal. Do you…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2301.03354/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>econ.GN</category></item></channel></rss>
