This refers to a false assumption that carbon emissions and the removals that might balance them are two sides of the same equation. If only it was so simple.

The so-called like-for-like principle is repeatedly brought up as an argument to frame emissions and removals as equivalent, allow for offsetting, and justify the use of temporary removals to balance specific emission types. 

Although some like-for-like approaches are rooted in science, for instance, comparing emissions with long atmospheric lifetimes, such as CO2, with removal technologies reaching similar storage durations, the implications of such thinking in policy can cause severe damage.

While not using natural sinks to offset fossil fuels is a good practice to come forth from using the like-for-like principle, to deliver solid and credible carbon removal policy, a more precise approach that goes well beyond ‘like-for-like’ is needed. Check out this article for more.