A new review paper argues that carbon offset schemes fail because of deep systemic flaws, not just a few isolated problems. The authors say the issues run through the entire system and cannot be solved with minor reforms.
The study draws on more than 20 years of research. It found widespread and persistent problems that make most major carbon credit programmes low in quality. Industry groups and climate negotiators have tried many times to improve these systems. However, the paper concludes that new rules agreed at last year’s UN climate summit did little to fix the core issues.
“We must stop expecting carbon offsetting to work at scale,” said Stephen Lezak, a researcher at the University of Oxford’s Smith School and co-author of the study. “We have assessed 25 years of evidence and almost everything up until this point has failed.”
What Carbon Offsets Are Supposed to Do
Carbon offsets are meant to cut emissions at lower cost. In theory, wealthy companies can pay for climate action in other countries while continuing to emit greenhouse gases at home. If done well, this could reduce global emissions by directing money where it has the most impact.
Why Offsets Fail in Practice
In practice, carbon offset markets are full of “junk offsets” that overstate their real benefits. The researchers highlighted several major problems:
- Non-additional projects: Credits are often given to projects that would have happened anyway, such as wind farms already planned.
- Temporary gains: Tree planting projects can be reversed by wildfires or logging.
- Leakage: Protecting one area can simply shift deforestation or damage elsewhere.
- Double-counting: Both the buyer and seller sometimes claim the same emissions reduction.
The study notes that even if an offset performs well in most areas, failure in just one can make it nearly worthless.
A recent meta-analysis in Nature Communications found that fewer than 16% of carbon credits examined led to real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Attempts to Improve the Market
There are ongoing efforts to raise standards. Groups like the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) are reviewing research and approving only projects that meet strict criteria. New rating agencies now assess the credibility of carbon credits so buyers can avoid low-value offsets.
Dr. Benedict Probst of the Net Zero Lab at the Max Planck Institute described the review as a useful overview of well-documented problems, although he noted that it did not evaluate each underlying study in detail.
What Needs to Change
The review’s authors urge policymakers to phase out offsets that do not remove carbon from the atmosphere. They call for a shift toward high-quality carbon removal and long-term storage. They also recommend moving away from the idea that buying credits “cancels out” a company’s emissions. Instead, companies could make contributions that support climate action without claiming they have neutralized their own pollution.
Some types of projects may still offer real benefits. Examples include distributing cleaner cookstoves or capturing methane from landfill sites. However, these need strong oversight to ensure they deliver what they promise.
“We don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater,” said Lezak. “There are a few areas where real progress is possible, and we should highlight those.”
——————————————————————————
At Natural World Fund, we are passionate about restoring habitats in the UK to halt the decline in our wildlife.
No responses yet