It might be too soon to call it abandoned, but I was very intrigued by the Austral [1] language. The spec [2] is worth reading, it has an unusual clarity of thought and originality, and I was hoping that it would find some traction. Unfortunately it seems that the author is no longer actively working on it.
If the author is around, I notice in the README you mention the GNU units program, which I use quite a bit. I'm curious if you've made any notable divergences from it?
a few clarifications (in the industry but not involved with this deal):
* carbon removal credits are a subset of carbon credits
* they are generally considered higher-quality than most other credits (which are "avoided emissions"). This is because, for example, turning on a direct air capture machine, is clearly something that would not happen without the sale of carbon credits.
* there's not always a clear line between carbon removal credits and non-removal (ie "avoided emissions").
* unfortunately the carbon credits that have come under the most fire (nature-based solutions like forestry) are also, technically, closer to being "carbon removal" -- and some sellers play up that ambiguity, to their advantage.
I agree that this is likely missing data systematically.
However note the difference between carbon offsets vs carbon removals. I don't know what kinds of offsets Google bought but given that they started buying them >15 years ago, they were probably not removals.
I actually hesitated before posting for exactly this reason, and I don't think you're wrong to be sensitive to this. But you'll notice that there's actually no real political content in the link, nor was there any political discussion in the thread, so I think your response is a little bit of an overreaction.
Vaguely related, a few years ago I made a map of "how to drive from SF to NYC while passing through the minimum number of Republican-voting counties": https://github.com/louispotok/blue-road-trip
[1] https://austral-lang.org/ [2] https://austral-lang.org/spec/spec.html