The failure of carbon offsets to curb planet-warming emissions isn’t caused by just a few rogue schemes — the flaw lies deep in the system itself. After more than two decades of review, researchers conclude that most large-scale offset programmes are plagued by structural problems that can’t be fixed by mere tinkering.
Time and again, offset projects claim credit for actions that would have occurred anyway, or give value to efforts that are temporary and reversible. Others shift environmental harm elsewhere, or count the identical emissions reductions multiple times. Together, these issues mean that many carbon credits don’t actually reduce greenhouse gases — they merely appear to do so.
Even when international rule-makers try to raise standards, the core issue of quality remains unresolved. As one of the study’s authors puts it: “We must stop expecting carbon offsetting to work at scale.” After decades of effort, most approaches have failed to deliver real climate impact.
The idea behind offsets — that polluters can finance cheap climate action elsewhere instead of reducing their own emissions — sounds reasonable. But in practice, the markets are flooded with “junk offsets” that overstate their benefit.
Some analyses suggest fewer than one in five offset projects actually lead to genuine emissions cuts. This isn’t just a matter of weak oversight; it’s rooted in conflicts of interest, information gaps, and a surprisingly thin base of people pushing for high-quality projects.
At its core, the problem isn’t just bad projects or careless monitoring — it’s that the entire system is built in a way that allows over-claiming. Unless we rethink what constitutes a valid offset, we will continue to treat carbon credits as climate action when, too often, they aren’t. Read More
News Credit: The Guardian
Picture Credit: Stephen Lam/AP