Carbon Offsets: A Flawed Solution, According to New Research
For years, carbon offsetting has been promoted as a key tool in the fight against climate change. The concept is simple: compensate for emissions by investing in projects that reduce or remove greenhouse gases elsewhere. However, a comprehensive research paper by Joseph Romm, Stephen Lezak, and Amna Alshamsi published in the Annual Review of Environment and Resources, suggests this popular climate solution is deeply flawed and often fails to deliver on its promises.
The Problem with a Popular Solution
The core issue, as highlighted in their paper titled “Are Carbon Offsets Fixable?,” is that many offset programmes significantly overestimate their climate impact. According to the authors, the most widely used schemes may be overstating their effectiveness by a factor of five to ten, or even more.
Their systematic review of the existing literature identifies several persistent challenges that undermine the credibility of the carbon offset industry:
Additionality: This is perhaps the most significant hurdle. For an offset to be valid, the emissions reduction it represents must be “additional”, meaning it would not have happened otherwise. The paper emphasises how notoriously difficult this is to prove.
Leakage: The authors point to the problem of “leakage,” which occurs when an emissions-reducing activity in one area simply causes an increase in emissions elsewhere. For example, protecting a forest in one region might inadvertently lead to increased deforestation in another.
Permanence: The research questions the long-term viability of many offsets. How can we guarantee that the carbon stored through a project will remain stored permanently? A forest planted today could be destroyed by fire, disease, or logging in the future, releasing the stored carbon back into the atmosphere.
Double Counting: The paper also notes the risk of a single emissions reduction being claimed by more than one entity, a fundamental accounting error.
These issues, combined with problems of environmental injustice and unreliable verification processes, have led to what the authors describe as a crisis of confidence in the voluntary carbon market. They express serious concerns that these same flaws will be replicated in the emerging global compliance market under the Paris Agreement.
A New Direction Proposed by the Researchers
So, where do we go from here? In their paper, Romm, Lezak, and Alshamsi propose a fundamental shift in approach. Rather than attempting to patch a broken system, they argue for a more rigorous and focused strategy for carbon markets, based on their review of the evidence. Their recommendations include:
Prioritising High-Integrity Carbon Removal: The focus should be on projects that offer high-integrity, durable carbon dioxide removal and storage. This means investing in technologies and approaches that can verifiably lock away carbon for the long term.
Exploring Alternative Financing: For valuable conservation, renewable energy, and sustainable development projects that do not meet the strict criteria for high-quality offsets, the authors suggest exploring alternative financing mechanisms. This could include “contribution claims,” where companies can fund these vital projects without claiming a direct and potentially misleading offset for their own emissions.
In conclusion, the research from Romm, Lezak, and Alshamsi in the Annual Review of Environment and Resources delivers a stark warning. While the idea of carbon offsetting is appealing, their systematic review indicates the current system is fraught with problems identified across numerous studies. The paper concludes not with a call to abandon climate finance, but to be more honest about its limitations. The authors urge us to focus our efforts on solutions with verifiable, lasting impact, suggesting that the future of our planet depends on it.
Source: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112823-064813
