Common criticisms of carbon credits

A neutral reading of the evidence includes real concerns:

• Over-crediting. Studies and media investigations have argued that some forest-protection and cookstove projects issued far more credits than the real impact, mainly because of high baselines.
• Weak additionality. Some projects, such as large renewable plants in countries where renewables are already cheapest, may have happened anyway.
• Reversal risk. Forest carbon can be lost to fire or felling long after credits were sold.
• Delay instead of action. Critics say buying cheap credits can let companies postpone cutting their own emissions.
• Fairness. Questions are raised about how much of the money reaches local communities.

Standards have responded with new methodologies, the ICVCM labels and stricter rules on claims. Guidance such as the SBTi corporate standard generally treats credits as something to use in addition to cutting your own emissions, not instead of it.