All of these feel good programs assume zero emissions to create, install, and maintain the solar panels. I do not think that is the case, so you are not "saving" the earth from 10,000 pounds of added CO2 per panel.
If the company folds after a few years (likely), you will probably have actually added to the global CO2 emissions unless someone else steps in to maintain the farm.
If the program does fold (and I agree that's a possibility), why wouldn't someone else step in? The vast majority of the cost is in the construction of the farm (including purchasing the panels). Once it's up and running the annual costs are negligible. It would seem to be the perfect business to buy up if the original (cloudsolar) becomes insolvent) - all the profit, almost none of the expenses. Even better if the takeover company has no financial obligation to pay quarterly checks to the original investors...
Why not have a crowd funding company that buys rain forest land and places it in a trust so it will not be clear cut. That would be a long term gain on CO2 levels.
There are companies that attempt to do this - main problem is questions of national sovereignty. It's hard (if not impossible) for a foreign entity to prevent a government from utilizing its own resource. Also, not cutting rain-forests wouldn't result in a long term gain on CO2 levels (which I interpret to mean a reduction in atmospheric CO2). Rainforests aren't carbon sinks... in most cases they actually are a small carbon source. However, clear-cutting them would release a lot of the stored carbon, perhaps that's what you meant?
All said, I still don't understand why you would support a company that buys rain forests for conservation (and presumably returns nothing to the donors), yet oppose one that creates solar panels with the aim of giving a small subsidy back.
*I should point out that this solar company would not be viable without government subsidy, which is essentially taking resources from one pocket and putting them in another, then pointing out how great a deal this is. Those resources are then not available for other programs, some of which could also be green.
Which government subsidy? There's a lot out there, all designed to help out different projects. Government dollars also build schools, roads and parks, all of which generate jobs and (ideally) generate more revenue. How is this any different?
Again, I don't understand your logic that we shouldn't support one project that aims to increase total solar energy output and is green because it might take money away from another project that might also be green. It's like a small hospital with one surgeon saying we shouldn't operate on one patient because a second one might come along "sometime".