A new scientific review has raised serious questions about whether forest carbon credits-widely used by companies to “offset” their greenhouse gas emissions-are actually delivering real benefits for the climate. The study, led by researchers from Boston University and the Clean Air Task Force, examined the rules and standards that govern how these credits are created and sold in North America. Their findings suggest that the current system is too weak to guarantee that buying a carbon credit truly means a ton of carbon dioxide has been kept out of the atmosphere.
What Are Forest Carbon Credits?
Forests play a crucial role in fighting climate change because trees absorb carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the air and store it in their trunks, branches, roots, and soil. Forest carbon credits are a way for companies and individuals to pay for projects that either protect existing forests, plant new trees, or manage forests better so they store more carbon. In theory, each credit represents one ton of CO₂ either avoided (by preventing deforestation) or removed from the air (by growing more trees).
These credits are used in two main types of markets:
– Compliance markets, where governments require companies to limit emissions and allow them to buy credits to meet legal targets.
– Voluntary markets, where companies or individuals buy credits to claim they are reducing their carbon footprint, even if not required by law.
Why the Concern?
The researchers found that most of the current standards, or “protocols,” used to certify forest carbon credits are not strong enough. Out of 20 protocols reviewed, none were rated as robust, and only one-yet to be used in practice-was considered “satisfactory”. This means there’s a real risk that many credits sold today may not represent real, additional, or permanent climate benefits.
Some of the main problems identified include:
– Permanence: Forests can be destroyed by wildfires, pests, or land use changes, releasing stored carbon back into the atmosphere. Many protocols don’t properly account for these risks or use outdated, one-size-fits-all assumptions instead of local data.
– Additionality: Some projects claim credit for carbon savings that would have happened anyway, even without the project. This means buyers may be paying for “phantom” reductions.
– Leakage: Protecting one forest might just shift logging or land clearing to another area, resulting in no real net benefit for the climate.
– Weak Monitoring and Verification: There is often limited transparency and oversight, making it hard to know if the promised carbon savings are real and lasting.
Why Does This Matter?
Forest carbon credits make up nearly 40% of the global voluntary carbon market, which was worth about $2 billion in 2022 and could grow much larger in coming decades. If these credits are not high-quality, they could undermine efforts to fight climate change by allowing companies to claim they are “carbon neutral” without making real emissions cuts.
What Can Be Done?
The scientists behind the study are not calling for the end of forest carbon credits, but for urgent improvements. They recommend:
– Using up-to-date, location-specific data to better estimate carbon storage and risks.
– Regularly updating risk assessments, especially as climate change makes wildfires and pests more common.
– Improving methods to track and prevent leakage.
– Making monitoring and verification more transparent and independent.
– Revising protocols to keep up with the latest science and technology.
As Professor Lucy Hutyra of Boston University put it,
“It’s time for all protocol developers to put this information to use to protect investments in the vital role that forests can play in mitigating climate change”.
The Bottom Line
Forests are a powerful tool in the fight against climate change, but the current system for creating and selling forest carbon credits is not delivering on its promises. Without stronger rules and better oversight, there’s a risk that these credits could do more harm than good by giving a false sense of progress. The study’s authors urge governments, companies, and market regulators to act quickly to fix these problems and ensure that every carbon credit sold truly helps the planet.
