So I was recently in Brazil and I spent a few days with my wife's cousin who makes his living off of the rainforest in a sustainable way. He harvests wood from trees that have fallen, without him chopping them down. He maintains beehives of indigenous bees that are only productive in the rainforest. He does some poaching of birds and orchids but he insists that it's sustainable. I suppose he could be lying but he lives in the rainforest and raises his kids in that lifestyle so he has every motive to not harm the ecosystem. Unlike most of the people where I live, he didn't seem like the type to only care about making as much money as possible.

I do think that it's absolutely possible to have the land be productive in an ecologically sustainable way while producing carbon offsets. I do think that a big part of it will require creating a market for these sustainable products and having a verification process to ensure that they are produced sustainably.

The main ideas it that theoretically the demand should shift to greener alternative. However, as far as I understand the issue is that currently it shifts the demand to another producer. There is this concept of additionality in carbon offsets but it's intractable to measure. IMHO the only way to really prevent it would be to pay most or all polluters so they stop. One day we might get there when we've offset most emission sources of a given type (ie say land forest). But in the meantime, those offsets are not actually moving the needle. And also, does that mean we should start paying via carbon offsets every single owner of an oil pit so they don't get oil off the ground?

IMHO, the only activity that should have ever been considered as carbon-negative is actually taking carbon out of the air, and storing it in the ground somehow. IT is extremely expensive, which highlights why it is so important to prevent carbon emissions in the first place.

All of these suggestions which seek to reduce someone else's carbon output somehow, seem fraught with moral hazard or other significant problems.

Even that, there are plenty of claims that if you pump CO2 down into oil wells it'll be trapped there for millennia...

While the reality is that pumping co2 into oil wells helps get more oil out, and then eventually the co2, at high pressure, converts to carbonic acid in the water, and flows out. And since carbonic acid is acidic, whatever tiny crack it finds to get out of will rapidly get larger as fast moving acidic fluid erodes it bigger and you have a sudden release of massive quantities of 'stored' CO2.

How would you incentivize poor countries to keep their dense vegetation instead of cutting it down for cash crops and pastures?

People want to “help the climate” but not have to change any of the behaviour in the process. Until that fundamental concept shifts, nothing will really help (imo)

Your examples aren’t really wrong, but is the demand level really legitimate in the first place? The amount of food waste is insane, stop people wasting and supply could drop to match. Make meat more of a premium food since it costs (the environment) more to produce.

Until humans realise they need to change their behaviours, things like CO2 accounting is just moving deck chairs around on the Titanic.

The country earns hard currency and can then purchase food from abroad ??

In Mathematics, there are metrics that differ for small values, but converge (percentage wise) for larger values. Then the metrics are deemed equivalent.

Hopefully CO2 accounting is similar: As more countries and industries participate, the loop holes become obvious and can be dealt with by minor adjustments.