Companies around the world have labelled their activities as carbon or climate neutral, have set net-zero emissions targets or have otherwise sought to green their image by buying carbon credits from climate projects and using them to offset their emissions.
This is an extremely problematic practice. At a time when the science shows that the emissions of advanced economies like the EU need to fall by 65% by 2030, offsetting does nothing to reduce the actual internal emissions of the offsetter, it simply shifts the problem onto someone else’s shoulders.
Moreover, the climate impact of projects financed through the sale of carbon credits is unclear. At best, they do not represent an actual tonne of emissions. At worst, their climate impact is grossly exaggerated.
When it comes to carbon offsetting, Carbon Market Watch focuses on:
“Offsetting emissions is not the solution – it is an illusion. The only way to truly help the climate is by slashing emissions.”
Benja Faecks
Policy expert on global carbon markets
“Offsetting emissions is not the solution – it is an illusion. The only way to truly help the climate is by slashing emissions.”
Benja Faecks
Policy expert on global carbon markets
Countries and corporations prioritise deep, rapid and sustained emissions reductions
Companies stop offsetting their emissions
Standards and intermediaries stop selling carbon credits as offsetting tools
Buyers of carbon credits find more sustainable uses for carbon credits, such as the ‘contribution model’ in which buyers simply state that they contributed to climate action via funding a certain type of project(s)
A review of existing studies finds that there is insufficient evidence to support the hypothesis that corporate investments in the voluntary carbon market increase a company’s climate ambition.
Few climate instruments are as controversial as carbon credit markets: some see them a cost-efficient way to reduce or remove emissions globally and to help the Global South in the bargain, while others see a failure to deliver sufficient climate benefits, as well as inequitable, or even seriously negative, social consequences.
This CMW study and associated briefing finds that the International Maritime Organisation’s stalled Net-Zero Framework
Is offsetting fine if it is done with highly durable carbon removal credits? Sabine Frank weighs the pros and cons.
What is beyond value chain mitigation (BVCM) and what are the prerequisites for making BVCM claims? In this FAQ, we answer some frequently asked questions.
jonathan.crook[at]carbonmarketwatch.org
lindsay.otis[at]carbonmarketwatch.org
federica.dossi[at]carbonmarketwatch.org
benja.faecks[at]carbonmarketwatch.org
inigo.wyburd[at]carbonmarketwatch.org
isa.mulder[at]carbonmarketwatch.org
Stay in touch and receive our monthly newsletter, campaign updates, event invites and more.
