illustrating the imbalance created by ineffective carbon credits.
Can planting trees really outweigh our fossil fuel emissions
- 3 min read

Carbon credits meant well but we need to do better

For 50 years carbon credits have promised a way to drive money into environmentalism. Instead we have ended up in a situation where people are trying to buy credits to make money or greenwash their customers, rather than for the good of the planet.

On this page

Let's be honest: when carbon credits first rolled onto the environmental scene, they felt like the panacea for our carbon woes. Essentially a permit that allows companies to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases, these credits could be traded and sold. The idea was that environmentally-conscious companies could buy credits to offset their carbon footprints, and thus, a global carbon market was born. But as the adage goes, not all that glitters is gold. While carbon credits have done a lot of good, there's much room for improvement. And as experts in the field, it's our duty to critique, dissect, and eventually offer solutions.

The principle behind carbon credits is commendable. Companies that emit less than their share can sell their surplus credits to those who surpass theirs. This system, in theory, motivates everyone to reduce emissions because there's financial gain at stake. But like most systems, it's not without its flaws.

First and foremost, the concept of "offsetting" has faced valid criticism. Some argue that it merely gives large corporations a way to pay for their environmental sins without making genuine changes. If company A can simply buy credits from company B to justify their emissions, where's the real incentive for company A to reduce those emissions in the first place? It's a form of greenwashing – making things seem eco-friendly when they're not.

Low-quality carbon offsets have been a thorn in the side of genuine environmental efforts. Touted as a solution for companies and individuals looking to compensate for their carbon emissions, these offsets often promise more than they deliver. In reality, many such schemes have dubious to no tangible effect on the environment. Whether it's tree-planting initiatives that never materialize or renewable projects that would have been implemented anyway without the additional funding from carbon credits, these questionable practices muddy the waters. They not only undermine trust in the broader carbon offset market but also detract from the urgent need for impactful climate solutions.

Moreover, the current carbon trading initiatives often favor larger corporations that can afford to buy these credits. And sometimes, carbon credit projects, especially those in the developing world, can have unintended negative consequences on local communities.

So, what can we do better? How can we move beyond the conventional wisdom surrounding carbon credits?

1. Localized Carbon Markets:
Creating more localized carbon markets might be a solution. By focusing on regional or even city-based markets, we can develop strategies tailored to specific communities, ensuring that projects funded by carbon credits have a real and positive impact and that impact is immediately verifiable by both companies and individuals.

2. Direct Action Over Offsetting:
Instead of merely offsetting emissions, companies - and individuals - must take direct action. For example, a company might pledge to reduce their emissions and plant a certain number of trees for every ton of unavoidable carbon emissions they emit. Direct action ensures tangible results, as opposed to the nebulous world of offsetting.

3. High-Quality Carbon Capture Technologies:
For those who desire only the best, consider technologies like Bio-oil injection from Charm Industrial or the Direct Air Capture units from Climeworks. They literally pull CO2 out of the air and store it for thousands of years. It's the kind of precision and efficiency we should be aiming for.

4. Strict Regulations and Audits:
While some might balk at the idea of more regulations, it's essential to ensure that carbon credit projects have the desired impact. Regular audits by third parties can ensure transparency and effectiveness.

But here's a contrarian idea: What if, instead of focusing solely on carbon credits, we shifted our attention to creating incentives for companies to develop zero-emission technologies? While carbon credits aim to offset emissions, the real solution lies in not producing those emissions at all.

The journey ahead is complex, no doubt. Carbon credits meant well, and they've undoubtedly had a positive impact. But as with all systems, there's always room for improvement. Let's not rest on our laurels. It's time to push boundaries, embrace new technologies, and always strive to do better.