Talk:Verified Carbon Standard

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Finance & Investment Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes

Section size for Verified Carbon Standard (8 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	5,414	5,414
Usage in voluntary carbon markets	113	113
Development	2,903	2,903
Controversies	2,333	2,443
Concerns with forestry projects	110	110
See also	115	115
References	28	28
External links	304	304
Total	11,320	11,320

References & promotional tone[edit]

There are "Verified+Carbon+Standard"&oq=&gs_l= lots of mentions in the media, but these don't constitute notability by themselves. Are there any news articles or other notable sources which are primarily about VCS?

It seems like this is an important topic which probably satisfies WP:Notability, but it needs better references. I've added links to an FAO and a UK govt document for the interim - not sure if they meet the criteria, but at least they're not self-promotion.

It still has a promotional tone, but I removed the section which seemed least justified/supported, about the CEO. --Chriswaterguy talk 00:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned this up a little bit with sources, also reflecting renaming of organization to Verra. Cheerful word nerd (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding some more information on Guardian report. — comment added by Cathywiki76 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bulked up on available public comments on offsets and markets. WikiEditor8910 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Divergence of standard and organization names[edit]

The standard is now still VCS, while the organization is named Verra. I worked on this some, but could probably be made even clearer. I think VCS the standard is still more notable than the Verra organization -- not sure if necessitates a separate entry for Verra yet. Cheerful word nerd (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

blank-and-redirect from Verified Carbon Standard[edit]

made a blank-and-redirect from Verified Carbon Standard Cheerful word nerd (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian: Shell to spend $450m on carbon offsetting as fears grow that credits may be worthless[edit]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/19/shell-to-spend-450m-on-carbon-offsetting-fears-grow-credits-worthless-aoe

John Cummings (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2023[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the following sentence with citation to the last line of the second paragraph above History section. "However, these findings are disputed by Verra and other actors in the marketplace." with the following source cited: ^[1] Cathywiki76 (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You'll need to find secondary sources discussing this. This is essentially a blog piece published by a company. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://everland.earth/news/the-science-behind-the-the-guardian-piece-is-fatally-flawed/

[1] ttps://everland.earth/news/the-science-behind-the-the-guardian-piece-is-fatally-flawed/

[1]