applied to global carbon emission reduction and the maximum global average temperature increase goal of less than 1.5˚C. The simplification is especially misleading when the negative emissions promised through the carbon credits will only take place in the future. The transaction hence becomes riskier, as in the present there are only positive emissions. First, when treating biotic and fossil carbon equivalent, it becomes difficult to evaluate if the mitigation was achieved through the reduction of fossil carbon or increased biotic sequestration. Suggesting that if enough action is taken in increased bio sequestration, any reduction in the use of fossil carbon can be delayed. For example, the energy sector can still be putting out emissions if the agriculture sector becomes "greener". Nonetheless, the technological, social, and economic transitions required in both these sectors differ significantly, as do their relative contributions to climate change. Second, when burning fossil fuels, then the which was previously captured in the fossil source goes from a stable long-term form of sequestration into the much more volatile active carbon cycle. While in the active carbon cycle, it is much more likely for the to get back into the atmosphere due to carbon leaks, forest fires, or increased soil temperatures. To account for this volatility risk, the accounting systems should implement temporary removal credits of the , rather than assuming an infinite removal of the carbon emissions. Some, on the other hand, argue that natural carbon sinks do not have the capacity to remove enough CO2 stemming from fossil fuels in a relevant time frame to hinder global warming, rendering carbon offsetting as not beneficial. Adding to this dilemma is the option for firms to offset any, not just hard to abate carbon emissions with credits bought through managed carbon sinks. If the price of buying credits to offset is lower than reducing their use of emissions, then the firms are incentivised to burn fossil fuel instead and then “ask for forgiveness” adding more emissions to the active carbon cycle and requiring more land to be reserved for carbon sequestration. Economic efficiency In 2009, Carbon Retirement reported that less than 30 pence in every pound spent on some carbon offset schemes goes directly to the projects designed to reduce emissions. The figures reported by the BBC and based on UN data reported that typically 28p goes to the set up and maintenance costs of an environmental project. 34p