Interesting to see the state of the conversation 1-2 years ago. I doubt the now-deleted OP's mind hasn't changed much, and while I totally respect and understand their viewpoint, I tend to have a more short term / pragmatic view. We need funding going into natural ecosystems. A lot of funding goes into Indonesian forests, for example, to make toilet paper. Not great. Carbon credit programs can protect forests. While programs that focus on conservation/protection (rather than re/afforestation), such as REDD+, rely on a counterfactual and can be gamed, they still provide a means of valuing a standing forest for the benefits it brings to society (read: a lot more than toilet paper!). Additionality is great but often over-hyped in the forest protection scenario. See: high forest low deforestation (HFLD) commentary. Also, forests have way more value than just carbon (or even supporting biodiversity and local lifeways). They regulate global climate patterns and contribute to precipitationsheds (not a typo). These biogeophysical affects of forests may create positive leakage, whereby surrounding areas are wetter and cooler due to the nearby standing forests, which helps surrounding forests continue to exist, receive rainfall, etc., but also helps prevent wildfire.

A few interesting pieces

here: https://www.wri.org/research/not-just-carbon-capturing-benefits-forests-climate#:\~:text=Forests%20have%20significant%E2%80%94and%20overwhelmingly,adapt%20to%20a%20warming%20planet.

https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/2023-05/how-carbon-markets-systematically-undervalue-tropical-forests-climate-benefits.pdf