I think you have based this all on false assumptions, which is why we have a communication breakdown. I still don't get it. > Thus my planes are carbon neutral

I think you have based this all on false assumptions, which is why we have a communication breakdown. I still don't get it. > Thus my planes are carbon neutral, How though? The carbon went into the atmosphere first. Then - some time later, how long? - an equivalent amount has been removed. But that takes time and that time is lost forever, the heat has been captured and the Earth warmed, already. > Emissions avoided are as good as emissions removed from the air. These two things are not equivalent. Emissions avoided are fare better that emissions removed from the air. Emissions removed from the air have already produced a warming effect on the Earth, while avoided emissions have not. > So again, in net, flying my planes produces carbon, but a ticket on my plane also pays for solar panels that save carbon. This doesn't make any sense though. You have still made a large carbon output, and your assumption is that without your plane, the house would never convert to solar but that simply isn't true. It's a false dichotomy and I don't understand how these two things could be equal to each other (removal vs. non-output). They are physically different processes with different consequences. > to help them install solar panels when they couldn't otherwise. This doesn't make sense to me though. > REC's help send more money to the renewable energy industry, bring more capacity online faster, and advance their R&D quicker than would otherwise. That's good! But it has nothing to do with Cloudflare "reducing" their carbon footprint.