Why Big Carbon Offsets Often Fail |
CounterPunch Exclusives
CounterPunch Exclusives
Why Big Carbon Offsets Often Fail
USG plant and Weyerhaeuser export docks, lower Columbia River. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.
The voluntary carbon market, or VCM, has been promoted as a tool for businesses, governments, and other entities to offset their greenhouse gas emissions by purchasing carbon offset credits from projects that purportedly reduce or remove carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere. In theory, these credits allow buyers to compensate for emissions by paying another actor for carrying out activities that are meant to reduce emissions elsewhere. This can include projects ranging from forest conservation to renewable energy and ecosystem restoration worldwide.
Yet the reality of the VCM is far more complex and fraught with structural challenges than most outsiders realize.
A 2025 report by Corporate Accountability analyzing the world’s largest carbon offset projects found widespread structural failures, revealing that even projects promoted by the market’s leading registries often fail to deliver the promised emissions reductions reliably. These challenges are systemic, spanning multiple registries, sectors, and project types, including forest conservation projects under REDD and REDD frameworks, large-scale hydropower and wind energy, cookstove and household efficiency initiatives, and industrial emissions reduction projects. The failures are neither isolated nor accidental but appear to reflect recurring patterns across the voluntary carbon market.
Verra, the largest registry in the VCM, continues to dominate the market despite repeated exposure of flaws in its projects. Many other registries, including the Gold Standard Impact Registry, Climate Action Reserve, and the American Carbon Registry, also host projects with questionable integrity. Across these registries, independent ratings agencies have rated many projects as having a moderate to low likelihood of delivering the promised emissions reductions, meaning that tens of millions of carbon credits may not represent real emissions cuts. The persistence of these risks demonstrates that the associated loopholes are not the result of a single “bad actor” but systemic and deeply embedded in the VCM’s design.
One of the central principles underpinning any carbon offset project is the concept of additionality. An offset can only be considered additional if the emissions reductions it delivers would not have occurred without the revenue generated from selling carbon credits. For example, planting trees on degraded land, capturing methane from waste that would otherwise be released, or investing in energy efficiency measures in homes can, in theory, represent additional........