►
Description
Gregory Landau and Steve Zwick from Verra team up to discuss the Voluntary Carbon Market, The Guardian article, and ways forward. The Regenerati News Hour is an opportunity for community engagement for anyone interested in planetary regeneration.
Connect with our community 👇
• Website: https://regen.network
• Twitter: https://wwwtwitter.com/regen_network
• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/weareregenne...
• Telegram: https://t.me/regennetwork_public
• Medium: https://medium.com/regen-network
• GitHub: https://github.com/regen-network/
• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/rege...
• Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/regen_network/
A
B
A
A
Make
sure
you're
on
your
mobile
phone
and
when
you
are
go
ahead
and
though
you
should
get
in
or
you
can
hit
repeat,
he
just
left
so,
okay
good
all
right.
So
why
don't
we
talk
more
important
stuff?
We
are
a
few
minutes
in.
Thank
you
everybody
for
coming.
This
is
the
regenerati
news
hour,
pardon
the
technical
difficulties,
I
blame
Elon,
but
we
have
a
great
show
today
with
Steve
zwick
from
Vera,
who
is
going
to
be
joining
us
to
talk
about
the
the.
A
C
Awesome
well,
yeah
excited
hi,
everybody,
sorry
about
the
technical
difficulties
super
annoying,
so
well.
So,
as
usual,
I'll
start
with
just
a
brief
little
report
back
from
The
Berkshire,
sweet
gold,
Maple
Farm.
Here
we
got
about
four
inches
of
snow
last
night
and
it's
nice
and
cold
for
the
next
few
days.
So
we're
the
sap
is
not
flowing
I'm,
not
getting
a
nice
break.
C
We've
boiled
about
almost
400
gallons
of
syrup,
which
is
pretty
exciting
and
it's
all
been
amazingly
light
for
those
of
you
who
sometimes
hear
me
report
on
the
maple
farm
in
the
beginning
of
the
regenerative
NewsHour,
just
as
a
little
grounding
exercise
to
the
you
know
real
world
farming
activities,
the
the
sap
when
it
flows
earlier
in
the
year,
is
more
likely
to
at
the
end
of
the
boil.
Be
this
amazing
very
light.
C
Almost
it's!
It's
like
like
olive
oil,
it's
very
very
light
light
Amber!
So
that's
what's
been
coming
out,
it's
really
delicious!
So
yeah
it's
exciting,
exciting
stuff
and
I'm
very
excited
about
this
conversation
with
Steve
I
had
the
pleasure
to
get
to
jam
with
him
a
little
bit
yesterday,
as
well
as
he
and
I
were
on
a
panel
in
Davos
together,
and
you
know,
Steve's
been
around
the
carbon
space
for
a
long
time.
C
C
You
know,
part
of
this
is
creating
a
space,
for
you
know
Steve
to
tell
his
side
of
the
story.
So
you
know
no
adversarial
or
trolling.
Please
and
the
the
general
conversation
that
I
want
to
have
with
Steve
is
kind
of
about
just
digging
in
hey
Steve.
It
looks
like
you're
back,
hopefully
we'll
get
you
on
awesome.
Welcome.
C
B
C
To
the
best
of
us,
that's
happened
to
me
several
times.
Well,
Steve
excited
to
have
you.
I
was
just
about
to
give
everybody
kind
of
the
Run
of
play,
so
some
of
the
conversations
that
that
you
and
I
were
were
chatting
about
and
kind
of
digging
into
a
little
bit
yesterday,
as
we
were
kind
of
pre-gaming,
so
just
to
kind
of
throw
out
a
few
of
the
the
the
topics
of
discussion.
C
And
then
you
can
add
anything
that
you
want
to
just
kind
of
like
round
out
what
we,
what
we're
going
to
be
covering
and
dialoguing
about,
and
then
we
can
just
dig
in
so
you
know
some
of
the
things
that
I'm
most
interested
in
is
just
kind
of
unpacking
the
process
of
governance
and
decision
making
around
these
complex
issues
like
what
is
the
Baseline.
That
is
specific,
that
is
operational
at
any
given
time
and.
C
B
B
C
Also,
of
course,
want
to
give
you
an
opportunity
to
kind
of
talk
a
little
bit
about
what
was
sort
of
wrong
and
maybe
even
disingenuous,
around
the
recent
reporting
and
articles
that
were
sort
of
you
know
or
hit
pieces
that
recently
came
out
and-
and
maybe
also,
if
you
don't
mind,
giving
people
your
honest
opinion
about
where
Vera,
but
maybe
the
larger
industry
at
large.
You
know
where,
where
improvements
are
actively
being
made
and-
and
you
know
which
of
those
are
the
most
important
like
what
should
we
really?
A
C
Of
undermining
things,
what
are
they
not
seeing
that
we
really
could
be
improving
on
as
an
industry?
That's
another
I
think
really
fruitful
conversation,
and
do
you
have
anything
that
you
want
to
add
to
that?
That's
kind
of
my
you
know
morning,
recollection
of
our
of
of
where
we
were
at
yesterday.
But
what
else
do
you
want
to
cover.
B
Yeah
I
think
those
are
the
three
main
issues
that
we
discussed.
I
think
the
first
and
the
third
are
really
related
to
each
other.
I
can
so
I
think
I'll
take
those
as
a
single
question
and
and
then
and
maybe
just
talk
about
it
at
a
high
level
and
then,
if
you
think,
if
you
have
follow-ups
they'll,
just
kind
of
do
it
off
the
top
of
my
head
and
if
you
think
I'm
skipping
around
too
much
or
something
just
ask
me
to
drill
down
and
then
I
think
answering.
B
That
will
then
lead
to
the
the
second
question,
because
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
things.
There's
a
lot
of
developments
have
been
ongoing
and
that
are
kind
of
baked
into
the
creation
of
the
standard
from
the
day
it
was
launched
and
that
those
I
think
the
you
know:
it's
not
just
a
guardian,
but
you'd
say
they
they
miss.
B
B
You
know
how
you
know
how
it's
conceived,
how
how
it's
done,
how
it's
evolved
so
far,
how
it's
continuing
to
evolve
and-
and
then
you
know
what
the
reasoning
behind
that
is
and
then
and
then
get
into
what
what
a
lot
of
people
are
missing.
Some
people
I
think
are
missing
it
intentionally.
Some
people
are
just
missing
it,
because
it's
complicated
and
and
to
be
fair,
none
of
the
standards
we
are
included
have
really
done
a
good
job
of
communicating
this.
Until
recently,
there
was
a
bunch
of
scientists
sitting
around
talking
to
other
scientists.
B
People
like
you
who
who
know
the
space
and
up
until
I
mean
I
I
only
joined
I
switched
from
being
a
reporter
to
being
Communications
guy.
Just
last
year
and
I
joined
Vera
explicitly
because
I
realized
they
hadn't,
you
know
they
they
were,
they
hadn't.
They
hadn't
taken
the
time
to
explain
this.
This
stuff
properly
and
a
lot
of
people
were
suddenly.
You
know.
People
who
couldn't
be
bothered
to
think
about
climate
change
four
years
ago
were
suddenly
popping
in
and
demanding
instant
solutions
to
really
complex
problems.
B
B
A
C
Is
particularly
important
when
we're
talking
about
avoided
deforestation,
for
instance,
or
conservation
projects,
which
should
be
essentially
preserving
intact
forests
at
an
at
a
better
rate
rates
at
a
higher
degree
of
performance
than
the
larger
landscape
that
isn't
participating
in
the
program
and
that's
how
we
do
the
carbon
accounting.
That
then
turns
into
a
carbon
credit.
Correct.
B
That's
that's
basically
correct
I
think
it's,
it
might
be
a
little
more
just
a
little
more
nuanced
to
say
it.
You
know:
how
does
it
respond?
You
know,
how
does
it
perform
compared
to
business
as
usual,
because
quite
often
the
projects
that
are
implemented
will
change
business
as
usual
and
in
the
process
of
doing
that
they
they'll
actually
alter
the
surrounding
territory
through
positive
externalities.
So
that
does
become.
B
You
know
that
that
becomes
a
a
factor
when
you
start
to
try
to
evaluate
baselines
retroactively,
but,
generally
speaking,
I
think
that's
right
going
forward.
The
idea
is
what
you
know
it's
like
if
you,
because
I
think
the
way
you're
describing
it
is
the
way
when
we
look
at
synthetic
controls,
that's
what's
in
what's
baked
into
that,
and
that
actually
is
is
the
way
baselines
are
evaluated
and
adjusted
over
time.
So
it's
it's
accurate,
but
I.
Think
it's
it's
more!
It's
more
just!
You
know
how
do
you
you
know?
B
C
Which
is
a
little
complex
right
right,
so
there's
probably
room
and
and
I
know,
there
is
active
sort
of
dialogue
and
even
disagreement
among
that's
in
Earnest
about
how
do
we
get
the
best
possible
Baseline?
How
do
we
approach
this
in
a
way
that
generates
the
the
legitimacy
and
authenticity
of
the
claim
and
therefore
the
credits
and
it's
you
know
this
recent
spat
of
Articles
you
know
really
what's
going
on,
is
they're
basically
saying
like.
Oh
this
entire
way
of
doing
things
is.
B
C
Deal
and
that's
getting
lots
of
headlines
and
I
think
so.
I'd
love
for
you
to
just
speak
directly
to
to
the
ways
in
which
and
and
and
uncovering
the
because
this
is
really
the
entree
into
like
learning
about.
What's
the
actual
process
for
the
Baseline,
you
know
when
do
they
get
updated?
How
does
that
update
happen?
And
you
know
like
what's
the
relationship
between
the
market
actors,
the
buyers
and
the
verifiers
in
that
sort
of
core
process
of
baselining
that
completely?
You
know,
none
of
that
information
showed
up,
obviously
in
the
Articles
right.
B
Right
yeah
and
it's
Central
to
everything
that
they
do
I
mean
this.
You
can
I
mean
if
you
look
at
the
way
bass
lanes
are
created
it
it
didn't
just
pop
up
in
2010
when
Vera
approved
the
first
red
plus
methodology,
it
goes
back
to
the
late
70s
early
80s
when
you
started
seeing
Research
into
what
drives
deforestation
and
how
do
you
model
it?
People
like
Sandra,
Brown
and
oh
God
and
John
blank
system.
B
You
know,
unfortunately,
we
lost
two
of
the
Pioneers,
just
in
the
in
the
past
couple
years:
Sandra
Brown
and
nor
Norman
I'm,
drawing
a
blank
anyway.
The
the
it
was
pretty
clear.
If
you,
if
you
going
back
even
into
the
80s,
you
could
look
and
see.
Okay.
If
you
want
to
model,
if
you
want
to
look
at
what's
happening,
where
deforestation
is
going
to
happen,
you
can
look
and
you
can
see
what's
causing
it,
you
can
see
incursions
of
small
holders
into
areas
where
their
Mosaic
deforestation
is
taking
place.
B
You
can
see
where
they're
coming
from,
where
they're
going,
where
similar
areas
of
deforestation
exist,
where
you
have
the
same
landscape,
the
same
regulatory
apparatus,
the
same
economic
drivers
and
everything,
and
you
could
predict
pretty
accurately
what
was
going
to
happen
over
the
next
five
or
six
years
that
that
that
has
been
constant,
going
back
to
the
80s
and
over
time
we
started.
You
know
the
first
red
plus
projects
were
initiated
in
the
late
80s
early
90s
and
they
used
very
rudimentary
modeling
to
try
and
identify
where
deforestation
was
taking
place.
B
B
What
interventions
and
you
know
bring
the
best
results
and,
for
the
most
part,
most
deforestation
when
talking
about
unplanned
deforestation
as
opposed
to
plan
deforestation,
it
usually
is
driven
by
smallholders
and
poverty,
and
so
the
the
solutions
tend
to
be
bringing
in
alternative
livelihoods,
and
things
like
that
that
help
to
take
the
pressure
off
the
forest
and
the
way
baselines
were
created
was
using
very
well
established.
I
mean
this
all
comes
out
of
environmental
impact
analysis.
These
are
the
same
tools
that
governments
use
to
determine
policy.
B
You
know
geomod
modeling,
modeling
programs,
where
you
can,
you
can
punch
in
you
know
the
the
local
actors
of
deforestation,
be
it
minors
or
whatever
you
can
clinch
in
the
landscape.
You
can
punch
in
all
the
different
variables
and
you
would
look
for
an
area.
That's
already
experienced
deforestation
and
you
would
say:
okay.
This
area
this
area
has
has
already
experienced
deforestation
here.
You've
got
an
area
that
has
not
yet
experienced
it,
but
it's
the
same
exact
situation.
B
How
do
we
prevent
what
happened
here
from
happening
there
and
use
what
happened
in
the
first
place?
There's
a
reference
area,
and
you
see
now:
we've
got
this
reference
area.
We
think
this
is
going
to
be
the
deforestation
that
happens
in
in
the
project
area
over
the
next
10
years
or
over
the
next
30
years.
Maybe
if
we
don't
have
some
kind
of
an
intervention,
and
then
you
establish
the
Baseline
based
on
that,
the
way
that
the
way
the
system
was
implemented
was
designed
to
work
is
you
would
come
up
with
a
you
know?
B
A
project
proponent
would
come
up
with
a
scenario
present
it
to
a
vvb,
which
is
an
independent
verification
body
recognized
under
one
of
one
of
one
of
in
either
a
federal
government
or
a
the
UNF
Triple,
C
or
other
agencies,
and
then
further
verified
certified
by
Vera
to
say.
Okay,
we
will
take
this
scenario
that
you
put
out
we'll
look
at
it,
we'll
see
if
it
makes
sense,
we'll
put
it
out
for
public
comment.
Anyone
who
wants
to
can
shoot
holes
in
it
and
say:
oh
they
got
this
this
wrong,
this
wrong,
etc,
etc.
B
So
once
you
that's
the
first
process
of
coming
up
with
the
Baseline
and
a
plan
for
addressing
it
once
that
that's
approved,
then
you
go
into
the
verification
phase,
which
is
saying:
are
they
actually
doing
the
work
that
they
do
and
then
the?
When?
So
when
when,
when
the
when
the
program
was
initiated,
the
idea
was
all
baselines
will
be
re-evaluate,
reassessed
after
10
years.
B
If
you
have
a
30-year
project,
you're
going
to
start
out
with
all
this
modeling
and
everything
based
on
you
know,
but
because
everything
goes
to
public
consultation
expert
review,
the
idea
was
we're
going
to
have
the
latest
available
science
at
the
time,
but
over
time
we're
going
to
continually
after
10
years
we
reassess
the
Baseline.
All
assumptions
are
reassessed
and
everything
else,
and
and
then,
if,
if
we
find
out
that,
maybe
the
Baseline
is
was
too
too
generous,
we
will
assess
it
downward.
B
Maybe
if
it
was
too
strict,
we
we
relax
it
a
bit
and
and
then
change
it
over
the
next
10
years
period.
Well,
what's
happened
since
then:
there's
been
extensive
bottling
over
the
past.
Well,
I
mean
most
of
these
projects
are
just
now
coming
up
to
reassess
it
so
they're
going
in
and
they're
looking
to
see
which
ones
you
know
which
which
need
to
be
assessed
downwards,
which
need
to
stay
the
same,
which
need
to
be
assessed
upwards
and
in
the
in.
B
In
the
intervening
10
years,
we've
had
huge
advances
in
in
remote
sensing,
artificial
intelligence,
Dynamic
modeling,
there's
been,
there's
been
a
lot
of
so
many
changes
in
the
last
10
years,
as
well
as
the
the
Advent
of
the
Paris
agreement
that
that
we've
already
already
implemented
changes
in
2021,
saying
that
Baseline,
the
period
of
during
which
you
know
the
between
which
between
reassessments
went
from
five
from
10
years
down
to
six
years.
So
at
this
point
already,
Baseline
is
going
to
be
reassessed
every
six
years.
B
The
one
reason
for
that
was
when
they
started
to
look
just
in
real
time
at
projections
and
and
result
they
found
this
usually
about
four
to
six
years
is
where
is
is
within
that
period?
The
projections
are
pretty
accurate
after
six
years
things
just
kind
of
it's
just
hard
to
predict.
You
know
you
just
don't
know,
what's
going
to
happen,
regimes
change
as
we
saw
in
Zimbabwe.
You
know,
science
comes
along,
you
you
get.
B
Are
they
implementing
all
these
activities?
What
is
the
deforestation
inside
the
project
area?
What
are
they
doing
that
they
can
control?
Are
they?
Are
they
doing
all
that
right?
In
the
reassessment?
The
first
thing
they
look
at
is
what
happened
outside
the
project
area,
and
so,
if
you
look
outside
the
project
area-
and
you
see
that
oh
wow,
you
know
this
happened
recently
in
Zimbabwe
with
a
project-
that's
getting
I,
think
unjustly
pillory,
because
a
very
good
project
that
was
implemented
when
Mugabe
was
still
in
in
office.
He
passed
away
and
his
policies.
B
You
know
he
had
a
policy,
he
had
a
policy
of
aggressive
settlement,
rural
areas
and
that
that
policy
continued
after
he
died,
but
it
eventually
changed
and,
as
a
result,
in
the
later
years
of
the
first
10-year
period,
they
started
to
see
that
deforestation
outside
the
project
area
had
slowed.
So
that
project
is
now
going
through
a
reassessment
and
we'll
have
its
Baseline
assessed
downwards.
B
Others
are
finding
that
the
that
the
the
deforestation
in
the
reference
region
and
the
surrounding
areas
actually
increased,
so
it's
and
they
will
probably
have
to
have
their
Baseline
adjusted
upwards.
So
you're
going
to
see
this
this
kind
of
these
readjustments,
where
you're
not
going
to
get
you're,
not
going
to
get
it
100,
but
you're
going.
If
you
get
a
30-year
project
and
it's
reassessed
every
six
years,
then
you're
gonna
have
five
reassessments
over
over
30
years,
and
sometimes
you
get
a
little
over.
B
C
Yeah
well
so
so
a
couple
sort
of
things
emerge
for
me
as
I'm.
Listening
to
you
talk
that
I
think
would
be
really
interesting
to
to
dig
into
our
you
know
specifically,
who
participates
in
decision
making
around
Baseline
adjustments.
What
institutions
or
individuals
are
involved
in
that
specific
or
project
developers
like
what's
the
you
know
who
who's
really
involved
in
that
decision
at
the
moment,
okay,.
B
Vera
has
actually
has
implemented
a
a
huge
change
on
the
red
plus
front,
and
this
gets
a
little
bit
confusing
too
I.
Think
what
you
know
when
you
look
at
red
plus,
as
envisioned
we've
always
had
this.
This
thing
that
you
know
to
really
address
deforestation.
You
have
to
go
at
at
the
jurisdictional
level.
You
can't
just
say
we're
going
to
do
this
little
patch
or
this
little
patch,
this
hot
spot,
that
hot
spot.
B
We
really
need
your
help
and
the
governor
said:
hey
it's
not
our
thing.
It's
a
tribal
thing,
so
it
in
in
the
project
ended
up
faltering,
partly
because
of
increased
deforestation,
resulting
from
increased
Timber
demand
and
lack
of
government
support,
but
then
the
real
killer
on
that
was
that
they
found
diamonds
and
gold
which
just
ramped
up
the
ramped
up
the
the
pressures
tremendously.
So
the
the
objective
has
always
been
to
do
jurisdictional,
crediting
and
the
reason
that's
important.
B
You
know,
because,
with
most
of
the
voluntary
projects
are
Standalone
projects
where
you
go
in
and
you
you
have
very
specific
drivers.
Drivers
and
deforestation
in
a
very
targeted
area-
and
you
can
quantify
it-
you
can
clearly
map
it
out
in
in
a
jurisdiction,
you're
trying
to
get
a
lot
of
different
actors
working
together
so
and
under
the
Paris
agreement.
Every
every
country
has
that
wants
red
Plus
Finance
through
jurisdictional
initiatives
under
under
the
Paris
agreement
has
to
create,
what's
called
a
Frau
Forest
reference
emission
level,
which
is
essentially
their
estimate
of.
B
What's
of,
what's
going
to
happen
at
deforestation
at
the
macro
level,
which
is
easier
to
estimate
this
is
you
know
if
you're
looking
at
Regional
things?
It's
it's
it's
much
more
complex.
You
know,
you're,
looking
at
site-specific
drivers,
suspicious
specific
actors,
specific
movers,
specific
terrain
and
stuff
like
that,
but
if
you're
looking
at
an
entire
country,
usually
you
take
the
average
rate
of
deforestation.
B
So
it's
a
slightly
different
shift
into
into
saying
you
know
into
looking
at
locally
to
looking
at
using
geospatial
modeling
what
sorts
of
drivers
are
indicating.
This
is
a
high
risk
area
and
then,
within
the
high
risk
area,
saying
what
specific
activities
are
most
at
risk.
So
the
reason
this
this
literally
I'm
not
going
to
answer
your
question,
but
the
way
I'm
I'm
looping
into
it
is
going
forward.
Vera
and
designated
bodies
are
going
to
have
a
more
of
a
more
of
a
role
in
defining
the
risk.
B
The
forest
risk
in
a
specific
region
than
than
is
currently
done
so
so
you'll
have
you'll,
have
risk
defined
across
an
area,
and
then
you
will
have
within
that
you'll
have
individual
projects,
but
the
baselines
will
be
set
in
a
in
a
more
standardized
way
than
they
currently
are
based
on
based
on
based
on
broader,
you
know,
based
on
specific
drivers
within
a
jurisdiction,
but
in
a
way
that's
standardized
across
the
entire
territory.
If
that
makes
sense.
B
So
so
that's
the
future,
but
the
way
it
is
now
is
when
a
baseline
is
reassessed.
It
is
still
done.
The
way
it
had
done
been
done
before,
which
is
that
the
the
project
proponent
comes
up
with
a
you
know,
identifies
with
ACS
the
threats.
A
VDB
then
has
to
go
through
answer
that
point
by
Point
means
they're
very
I
mean
these
reviews
take
months
right
now.
They
take,
you
know
because
of
the
vvv,
but
the
vvb
will
assess
it.
Go
through
Point
by
Point
decided,
go
interview.
B
People
on
on
the
ground
submit
a
report
to
Vera
Vera,
then
we'll
take
that
review.
It
maybe
send
it
back.
They
can
go
through
like
three
rounds
before
it's
either
accepted
or
rejected,
and
then
and
then
once
once
that
agreement
is
reached,
then
you
have
the
Baseline
for
the
next
for
the
next
period.
C
C
What
a
corporation
is
wanting
from
a
carbon
credit
is
certainty
that
there's
a
unit
of
carbon
that
they
can
count
against
their
carbon
liabilities,
their
their
unavoided
emissions
and
the
way
of
generating
that
currently
is
sort
of
this
social
and
scientific
process
of
generating
both
a
Baseline
and
then
of
ongoing
monitoring
and
adaptation
of
that.
But
then
there's
also
this,
and
this
wasn't
at
all
in
any
of
the
reporting-
and
we
didn't
talk
about
this
so
feel
free
to
punt
on
this.
C
Given
that
there's
a
lot
of
uncertainty
in
all
of
this
and
that's
what's
coming
through,
is
that
okay,
we
have
a
complex
social
process
and
we
have
a
complex
scientific
process
and
it's
ongoing
and
there's
always
some
amount
of
uncertainty
related
to
all
of
that,
and
these
processes
are
meant
to
both
minimize
the
uncertainty,
but
also
when
uncertainties
still
exists.
Sort
of
like
make
people
whole
through
the
buffer
pool
process.
C
C
Does
the
buffer
pool
process
inside
of
the
larger
kind
of
you
know,
Carbon
credit
as
an
instrument
in
the
voluntary
carbon
Market
ensure
that
it
is
kind
of
a
commodity,
ensure
that,
like
that
unit
of
carbon,
is
a
unit
of
carbon
and
they
bought
it
and
they
can
make
that
claim
without
getting
undermined?
Even
if
there's
a
little
bit
of
you
know,
even
if
it
kind
of
all
shakes
out
and
things
baselines,
have
to
be
adjusted,
downward
and
downward,
you
know
and
and
to
what
degree
like
yeah,
I
guess.
B
Yeah
I
guess
the
first
thing
on
that
the
the
uncertainty
isn't
as
much
addressed
through
the
buffer
pool
as
it
is
addressed
through
the
the
emphasis
on
conservative
estimates.
So
anytime,
you
know
any
time
there
is
uncertainty.
They
have
to
make
the
most
conservative
estimate.
You
know
they.
They
have
just
kind
of
like
what
they
did
with.
You
know
the
projections
on
on
climate
change
itself.
You
know
the
scientists
went
with
the
most
conservative
estimates.
Now
we
find
out.
Oh
my
God.
B
They
actually
were
too
conservative
and
that's
that's
the
principle
that
that
these
projects
work
on
is
be
as
conservative
as
possible.
Whenever
there
is
whenever
there
is
and
sort
of
your
doubt
and
don't
take
any,
don't,
don't
include
anything
such
as
positive
externality.
So
if
there
is
what
I
mentioned
before,
if
there
is
a
a
positive
externality,
such
as
a
reduction
in
deforestation
in
the
surrounding
area,
that
they
get
no
credit
for
that
and
there
are
tons
and
tons
of
positive
externalities,
the
buffer
pool
is
technically
more
for
reversals
and
things
like
that.
B
Etc
right
yeah
or
project
failure-
that's
another
one!
If
if
a
project
goes
five
years
without
a
without
a
be
there,
re-verification
forget
the
exact
numbers,
but
they
have
a
there's
a
three-step
process
where
the
project
doesn't
get
re-verified
because,
first
of
all
it
emphasize
it's
a
global
buffer
pool.
B
So
if
a
project
puts
you
know,
usually
it's
up
to
about
30
right
now,
it'll
probably
be
higher
because
of
increased
fire
risk,
but
if
a
project
puts
30
of
its
credits
into
the
global
buffer
pool,
that
means
it's
generated
those
credits,
but
it
doesn't
sell
them.
It
goes
into
this
pool
and
then,
if
if
at
some
point,
fifty
percent
of
the
project
Goes
Up
in
Smoke,
then
the
credit
that
30
percent,
an
equal
number
of
credits
are
retired
from
the
buffer
pool
and
then
plus
additional
credits
to
make
up
for
the
overage.
B
So
if,
if
a,
if
a
project
goes
this
I'm
I
I
think
this
is
the
way
it
works,
but
double
check
I!
Think
it's
it's!
After!
If
a
project
was
five
years
without
a
re-verification,
a
certain
percentage
of
those
credits
are
retired,
I
think
it's,
the
I
think
the
the
the
total
number
that
they
put
into
the
buffer
pool
are
are.
Then
there
are
canceled
as
a
term
they
use,
so
30
will
just
disappear.
C
B
No,
no,
no,
no,
no!
No!
No!
No!
No!
No,
because
because
it
means
that
this
is
the
thing
that
credits
are
decoupled
from
the
project
once
they're
sold,
so
the
the
the
the
buyers
should
should
think
of
those
credits
as
being
purchased
from
a
system.
It's
almost
like
you
know
it's
kind
of
like
you
buy
a
bag,
a
10
pound
bag
of
potatoes
are
getting
10
potatoes
and
one
pound
each
or
you're
getting
are
some
of
them
bigger
and
some
of
them
smaller.
You
know
you're
you're,
you're
you're,
not
you!
B
You
can't
really
say
every
single
ton
is
a
ton,
but
you
can
say
if
you
buy
100
tons
from
the
system.
You
you've
you've
had
this
environmental
Integrity.
So
if,
like
the
credits,
are
schismarck,
all
these
credits
are
going
into
the
buffer
pool
and
if,
if
a,
if,
if
a
buyer
has
purchased
those
credits
and
and
then
the
project
itself
fails,
they
are
still
you
know,
they're
back
by
the
buffer
pool,
so
the
environmental
Integrity
is
still
there.
The
net
impact
is
still
there.
B
Yeah,
so
no
that's
that's
the
whole
thing
that
the
buyers
need
to
know
that
that
you
know
they're
they're
taking
the
you
know
that
that
they're,
that
that
they're
they're
being
assured
that
they're,
not
even
if
the
an
individual
project,
has
a
reversal,
it's
covered
by
the
buffer
pool
or
if
the
project
itself
fails.
It's
covered
by
the
book
report.
C
Yeah,
it's
so,
but
but
what
I'm
hearing
is
that
you
know
and
I'm
curious.
This
is
just
like
on
the
fly
to
hear
your
thoughts
when,
when
might
it
make
sense
to
actually
also
have
to
add
to
the
buffer
pool
for
reasons
of
uncertainty
right
instead
of
Simply
making
conservative
estimates
I'm
curious
your
thoughts
about
that
yeah.
B
B
Theoretically,
what
to
do
on
this
type
of
stuff
is
using
the
buffer
pool
or
using
because
usually
a
project
proponent
will
have
multiple
projects
and
if
they
find
that
one
project
is
too
high
one's
too
low,
maybe
making
adjustments
within
their
accounts
so
that
they
can.
You
know
they
they
can
equal
that
out,
but
it's
done
in
kind
of
an
ad
hoc
basis,
because
the
the
thing
about
this
to
remember
is
that
these
these
projects
are
supporting
entire
communities.
B
So
it's
not
like
people
want
to
treat
them
like
they're,
just
commercial
transactions
and
that
that's
not
the
case.
You've
got
you
know
they.
They
work
by
by
by
helping
communities,
develop
sustainable
livelihoods,
and
even
if
you
look
when
you,
if
you
look
at
any
in
any
project,
even
if,
if
you
know
later
on
people
say-
oh,
maybe
maybe
there
was
you
know.
Maybe
in
hindsight
you
know
the
the
threats
weren't
as
great
as
we
thought.
They've
still
generated
incredible
results
and
people
in
the
communities
are
still
counting
on
that.
B
So
you
can't
you
can't
just
short
change
them,
because
the
outer
World
changed
a
little
bit
and
the
other
thing
is
the
outer
world
can
change
back.
This
is
what
we
saw
in
Brazil.
Was
you
saw
a
deforestation
rates,
dropping
and
then
Rising
again
when
bolsonaro
came
in
and
who
knows
what's
going
to
happen
now
that
Lula's
back,
hopefully
you
know
I'm
assuming
he'll
he'll,
you
know
make
improvements,
but
now
he
has
the
added
tool
of
being
able
to
use
jurisdictional
crediting.
B
You
could
argue
that
if
Lula
had,
if
Lula
had
the
ability
to
earn
carbon
Finance
for
the
reductions
he
made
back
when
he
made
them,
maybe
he
would
never
have
been
removed
from
office
in
the
first
place.
I
kind
of
went
in
a
different
direction.
There,
though
sorry
about
that,
did
I
answer
the
question
or
did
I.
B
Yeah
you're
right,
remember,
yeah,
just
because
remember
my
background,
because
I
was
a
journalist
covering
this
and
I
joined
there
just
almost
a
year
ago,
and
unfortunately,
one
you
know,
I
came
in
with
the
objective
of
dealing
with
this.
This
communication
and
education
gap,
which
I
think
is
the
real
problem
we're
having
is
they?
They
have
not
really
taken
the
time
to
explain
the
way
the
processes
currently
work
and
then,
from
the
day
I
came
in
every
time
I'd
opened.
B
My
inbox
I
had
20
questions
from
reporters,
mostly
about
projects
that
launched
10
years
ago.
So
it's
almost
like
everyone's
looking
at
what
happened
in
the
past
and
I
I
just
haven't
had
time
to
get
up
to
speed
on
all
the
different
proposals
for
for
the
new
ways
of
going
forward,
which
we
are
changing
by
the
way
we're
beefing
up
our
communication
system
tremendously.
So.
C
So
I
have
two
I
I
have
sort
of
two
other
questions.
One
question
is
what's
at
stake
right:
if,
if
there's
misapprehension,
maybe
even
intentionally
undermining
confidence
in
a
system
that
is
working
what's
at
stake,
if
people
lose
confidence
in
Vera
or
maybe
in
carbon
credits,
more
broadly,
like
what
happens?
C
How
does
that
diminish
our
ability
to
meet
climate
goals,
or
you
know
like
what
are
the
Alternatives
I
guess,
I'm
just
curious
to
hear
your
thoughts
like
I'm,
sure,
you're,
clearly,
you're,
passionate
and
probably
people
at
Vera,
and
most
of
us
like
in
this
space,
are
passionate
and
have
this
idea
like
we
need
to
make
change.
We
need
to
finance
projects,
we
need
to
conserve
forests.
We
need
to
take
other
climate
actions.
You
know,
what's
the
what's
the
game
here
what's
at
stake,
if,
if
this
goes
poorly.
B
Yeah
I
think
you,
you
answered
it
there.
You
know
so
many
I
don't
have
the
number
off
the
top
of
my
head.
But
you
know
the
the
amount
of
forest
being
protected
through
through
carbon
finances
is
massive
and
it's
not
just
being
protective.
It's
being
the
the
forest
economy
is
being
transformed.
Most
red
plus
projects
are
designed
not
just
to
provide
a
kind
of
you
know.
B
Let's,
let's
pay
this
forever
to
keep
the
forest
intact,
but
let's
help
these
communities
transition
to
where
they're
earning
money
by
managing
their
forest
sustainably,
and
if
that,
if
that,
if
that,
if
we
pull
the
carpet
out,
I
mean
people
have
signed
on
for
a
30-year
projects,
and
if
we,
if
we,
if
that
money
doesn't
come
in,
you
know
it's,
we
could
see
huge
reversals
of
of
the
of
the
progress
made.
You
know
you
could
see
projects,
you
know
faltering
or
not.
B
Expanding
and
and
I
mean
this
is
you
know
the
biggest
problem
of
the
last
10
years.
People
keep
talking
about
like
like
these
project
developers
are
making
a
Fortune
they're,
not
I
mean
these
guys
were
barely
getting
by.
They
were
robbing
Peter
to
pay
Paul
for
10
years
and
finally
getting
above
water,
as
people
started
to
pay
attention
to
this,
and
that's
one
reason
we
haven't
had
the
bandwidth
to
communicate
is
everybody.
What
I've
been
my
favorite
saying
has
been.
B
You
know,
fortunately,
what
we're
from
what
I'm
hearing
anecdotally
is
that
well,
prices
for
some
of
these,
like
the
NGO
might
be,
might
be
floundering.
The
the
actual
demand
for
individual
projects
is
high.
It
seems
like
it's
almost
like
what
happens
in
the
U.S
Senate
or
the
Congress.
Where
people
you
know
people
are
like.
Oh,
we
don't
trust
Congress,
but
we
love
our
Congressman.
You
know
there
are
people
when
they
know
the
story
of
an
individual
project
and
they
can
read
it.
They
go
yeah.
B
You
know:
digitizing
methodology
is
expanding.
Carbon
projects
at
and
reducing
costs,
because
the
cost
of
verifying
that
is
just
massive
I,
mean
up
until
a
couple
years
ago.
It
wasn't
really
possible
to
do
this
digitally
and
now
it's
it's
getting
there.
So
we're
we're
on
the
cusp
of
really
being
able
to
ramp
this
up.
In
a
way
where
you
have,
you
can
have
standardization,
where
standardization
is
possible,
localization,
where
it's
necessary
and
more
real-time
transparency.
That
is
real.
B
Unlike
the
you
know,
Global
Forest
watch,
which
is
a
great
initiative
but
WWI
wri
and
Hanson
himself,
have
been
adamant.
Saying
people
should
not
use
Global
Forest
watch
to
evaluate
the
efficacy
of
a
red
project.
Well,
there
is
the
next
generation
of
digital
mrb
will
make
will
make
all
of
these
processes.
You
know
more
transparent
and
again
I
think
I.
B
Think
Vera
has
been
as
transparent
as
it
possibly
can
be,
but
the
technology
is
going
to
make
it
even
easier
to
be
transparent,
so
I
think
we're
in
and
at
the
same
time
as
prices
go
up,
and
this
is
the
big
issue.
Jonah
bush
has
done
a
lot
of
research
into
this
up.
Until
this
point,
most
of
the
red
projects
are
done
by
groups
that
really
their
their
groups.
B
That
would
happily
work
non-profit
if
they
could
get
to
scale
and
a
lot
of
them
are
still
non-profit,
even
in
in
the
in
the
red
space,
but
they've
been
unable
through
philanthropy
to
implement
the
changes
they
want.
These
are
so
these
are
people
whose
hearts
are
in
it
already,
but
as
we
as
as
prices
go
up,
you
can
start
to
re,
get
to
people
who
are
maybe
a
little
more
profit
oriented.
You
can
start
to
get
into
situations
where
you
can
have
red
plus
covering
opportunity
costs.
B
The
biggest
problem
here
has
been
a
failure
to
communicate
and
I
also
think
that
the
way
the
way
narrative
Works
in
in
journalism,
you
know,
there's
kind
of
like
the
pendulum
swings.
You
know
right
now.
You
know
everyone's
kind
of
going.
Oh
what
you
know
these
things.
You
know
people
who
don't
understand
them
are
coming
in
and
looking
at
them
suspicion
I'm,
seeing
it
as
I
talk
to
reporters
who
are
new
as
they
start
to
dig
in
and
look
at
the
method.
They
you
see
the
lights
going
on.
You
see
them
kind
of
going.
B
C
C
You
know
improving
just
just
a
whole
Suite
of
technological
tools
that
can
probably
positively
I
mean
I'm
a
big
believer.
They
can
pretty
radically
transform
the
marketplace.
I'm
curious,
you
know
what
are
you
seeing?
That's
giving
you
optimism
and
what
are
you
seeing
coming
down
the
the
pike
on
that
front?
B
Kids
that
have
already
been
been
announced,
I
think
you
know.
Vera
has
already
announced
this
digital
mrv,
a
program
where
it's
working
with
a
lot
of
different
technology
providers.
I
think
the
only
one
that's
been
announced
so
far
is
pajama,
but
there
are
others
that
have
that
have
approached
us,
and
you
know
a
lot
of
people
will
approach
and
they'll
say:
let's
take
it
around
a
bit,
we
don't
want
to
go
public,
because,
if
it
doesn't
work
out,
we
don't
want
to
have
to.
B
You
know,
walk
back
from
something
that
we've
already
announced,
but
the
the
fact
that
that
that
groups
like
the
Chama
are
coming
up
with
really
sophisticated
modeling.
That
does
incorporate
the
new
digital,
the
new,
the
the
newest
advances
in
remote
sensing.
The
fact
that
the
the
Bezos
Foundation
the
bazel's
fund
put
a
lot
of
work
into
wri's
efforts,
which
will
then
help
to
ramp
up
the
ability
to
see
in
real
time
what's
happening
on
these
grounds.
B
Those
are
the
the
issues
that
are
already
out
there
and
I
think
what
what
gets
me
personally
excited-
and
this
is
what
I
can't
I
can't
put
a
whole
lot
of
detail.
But
when
this
whole
thing
started
with
the
guardian,
I
was
you
know.
I
Vera
has
been
looking
at
things
like
you
know,
at
synthetic
controls
and
counterfactual
pixels,
and
these
sort
of
modeling
approaches
that
the
guardian
relied
on.
B
In
fact,
these
methodologies
are
already
embedded
in
some
of
the
methods,
or
these
these
tools
are
embedded
in
some
of
the
methodologies
that
Vera
uses
for
things
like
improved
Forest
management,
A4
station
reforestation.
You
know
it
works,
because
the
surrounding
the
the
drivers
are
simpler
in
both
of
those
cases
you
have.
B
Convinced
that
they've
cracked,
the
code
they're
convinced
that
that
the
ability
to
use
tools
that
they
can
actually
model
in
in
a
much
in
in
a
lower
cost
way
and
even
a
more
accurate
way.
What
the
what
the
drivers
of
deforestation
are
locally
and
what
that
that
leads
us
to
a
situation
where
the
science
could
get
ahead.
Of
the
the
commercialization
I
mean
I.
Think
the
the
limit
that
we'll
always
face
is
going
to
be
that
you
have
to
create
enough
certainty
for
people
to
be
willing
to
put
money
in.
B
And
again
we
might
never
get
to
the
point
that
we
can
predict
every
single.
You
know
I
mean
you
never
will
you'll
be
able
to
predict
the
the
future
at
every
every
single
Forest,
but
you
can
say:
okay
systemically.
We
know
that
if
we
do
a
thousand
projects
you
know
you're
going
to
have
overshoot
and
undershoot.
They
will
definitely
balance
out
so
that
you
can
say
that
your
individual
credit,
you
know,
had
the
impact
you
you
know
you,
you
said
it
did
with
with
more
Precision
than
we
have
in
the
past,
I.
B
Think
in
the
past
you
know,
we've
mostly
said
you're,
probably
gonna
have
a
bigger
impact
than
you're
paying
for
now,
it'll
be
a
more
precise
impact,
which
that
then
makes
it
easier
for
the
project
developers
themselves.
The
more
accurately
allocate
resources
because
they're
not
over
you
know,
they're,
not
they
don't
have
to
put
in
all
these
uncertainty.
Buffers
so
I
think
I
think
that
that's
in
a
nutshell,
what
I'm,
what
I'm
seeing
is,
is
just
that
the
you
know:
I
had
Sachi
I.
B
C
B
People
always
it's
hard
to
get
me
to
shut
up.
Let's
get
going,
I
think
yeah.
We
didn't
really
talk
about
the
the
issue
that
you
asked
me
to
talk
about
the
the
reporting,
but
I
think
we
touched
on
the
important
things
which
are
what's
really
happening,
and
you
know
I
think
the
the
the
biggest
challenge
we
have
right
now
is
communicating
this
and
that's
what
I
hope.
That's
what
my
job
is
supposed
to
be.
B
So
it's
nothing
the
technology,
guys
the
mythology,
the
technologists
and
the
methodologists,
and
everybody
else
has
done
their
job
really
well.
So
I
think
we
just
need
to
make
sure
we're
telling
the
story
right
and
that
you
know
not
not
being
Pollyanna.
Is
you
know
trying
to
save
you
solve
everything
but
to
point
out
what
the
what
works,
what
doesn't
and
how
we
allow
for
it
yeah
and.
C
Awesome
well,
hopefully,
folks
can
go
check
that
out
and
I
really
appreciate
you
taking
the
time
to
come
and
hang
and
just
dig
in
a
little
bit
on.
You
know
baselining
and
what
wherever
is
going
next
and
yeah
I?
Think
I
I
learned
a
lot.
I
hope
everybody
else
did
as
well
and
yeah
look
forward
to
jamming
with
you
more
in
the
future
and
and
seeing
where
Vera
and
regen
Network
can
help
really
make
that
bionic
Planet
regenerative.