Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given after it.
When a large company announces that it will become carbon neutral by a certain year, the headline sounds reassuring. Look closely, however, and the promise often rests less on cutting emissions than on buying offsets: payments for projects elsewhere, such as planting trees or protecting forests, that are supposed to absorb an equal amount of carbon. In principle, offsets let a firm compensate for emissions it cannot yet avoid. In practice, their value depends on questions that are hard to answer.
Would the forest have been cut down without the payment? Will the trees still be standing in fifty years? Has the same tonne of carbon been sold to two different buyers? Investigations in several countries have found projects that claimed credit for protecting forests that were never under threat, or that counted savings twice. Such failures do not mean that every offset is worthless, but they show how easily a well-meant market can drift away from its purpose.
Critics therefore argue that offsets should be a last resort rather than the main plan. A company serious about climate change, they say, should first reduce what it can within its own operations, by using cleaner energy, redesigning products and cutting waste, and should report these reductions separately from any credits it buys. Investors and customers can then judge the real effort behind a green claim.
None of this is simple. Some industries, such as cement and aviation, have few affordable ways to cut emissions today, and for them high-quality offsets may be a necessary bridge. The task for regulators is to make that bridge sturdy: clear standards, independent verification and public registries that make double counting impossible.
Q1.According to the passage, on what does a company's carbon-neutral promise often rest?
- Closing down its factories
- Using only electric vehicles
- Buying offsets more than actually cutting its own emissions
- Moving its offices to forests
- Paying higher taxes to the government
Q2.Which of the following is NOT one of the questions the author raises about offsets?
- None of the above; all are raised
- Whether the trees will still stand in fifty years
- Whether the same tonne of carbon was sold twice
- Whether the forest would have been cut without the payment
- Whether the company's shareholders approve of the purchase
Q3.What did investigations in several countries find?
- Offsets had ended deforestation everywhere
- Companies had stopped buying offsets
- All offset projects were fraudulent
- Forests absorbed more carbon than expected
- Some projects claimed credit for forests that were never at risk or counted savings twice