Myth-busting carbon markets & offsets integrity - hidden trade-offs & how to manage them

Executive summary

The voluntary carbon market is growing quickly, yet its integrity has been called into question. Policymakers in the United Kingdom and abroad argue that companies must first reduce their own emissions before turning to credits, using them only to supplement an ambitious decarbonisation plan. Independent analysis shows that many carbon credits do not represent real and permanent emissions reductions; guaranteeing additionality and permanence for centuries is unrealistic. Audits have found that over-crediting, leakage and social harms are widespread and that a large share of credits retired in recent years come from projects that fail to deliver promised benefits. At the same time, new rules, standards and digital monitoring technologies promise to raise market integrity and lower verification costs. This guide lays out common myths, the hidden trade-offs in carbon markets and a practical framework for investors to support only high-integrity credits.

Why it matters

Carbon markets channel billions of pounds into climate and nature projects and allow organisations to offset a portion of their unavoidable emissions. When they work well, credits can finance forest restoration, avoid deforestation, conserve peatlands and fund renewable energy projects. However, if credits do not represent real, additional and permanent climate benefits, they undermine net-zero plans and risk misleading investors and consumers. The UK government’s consultation on voluntary carbon and nature markets emphasises that credits should only be used in addition to ambitious internal actions and that companies must follow a mitigation hierarchy. For investors, understanding the hidden trade-offs is essential to allocating capital wisely and protecting reputations.

Key concepts and market fundamentals

• Compliance versus voluntary markets. Compliance programmes such as the EU Emissions Trading System and the UK Emissions Trading Scheme cap emissions from regulated sectors and allow the trade of allowances. Voluntary markets enable organisations to purchase credits from projects outside regulatory caps. Voluntary credits vary widely in quality and are not fungible with compliance allowances.
• Additionality. A project is additional if it would not happen without the revenue from selling carbon credits. Many forestry and land-use projects fail this test, issuing credits for activities that are already planned or mandated.
• Permanence and reversal risk. Carbon stored in biomass or soils can be released by fires, disease or land-use change. Guarantees of permanence over centuries are difficult to enforce. Some programmes use buffer pools to insure against reversals, but evidence suggests these reserves are often inadequate.
• Leakage. Offsets may displace emissions to another location if activities like logging or agriculture move elsewhere. Leakage is frequently ignored or underestimated in project calculations.
• Measurement, reporting and verification (MRV). Traditional MRV relies on periodic site visits and sampling, which can be costly and subject to error or manipulation. Digital MRV uses satellite imagery, remote sensing and machine learning to monitor projects continuously and can reduce verification costs while improving transparency.
• Integrity standards. Emerging codes and standards such as the Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative (VCMI) Claims Code of Practice and the Oxford Offsetting Principles specify how credits should be used and what constitutes high-quality supply. The VCMI code requires companies to have a greenhouse-gas inventory, science-aligned targets and third-party assurance.

Myths and realities: Hidden trade-offs

Myth 1: Offsetting can replace real emission reductions. Offsetting should complement, not substitute, internal decarbonisation. The UK government states that credits should be used only after ambitious within-value-chain actions. High-quality credits remain scarce, and an overreliance on offsets risks delaying the transition.

Reality: Investors must prioritise emissions reductions and view credits as a limited tool. Companies should set science-based targets, disclose progress and use offsets only to address residual emissions. Transparent claims frameworks like the VCMI Claims Code provide guidance on when and how to make claims.

Myth 2: All carbon credits are equivalent and permanent. Many credits fail to meet core integrity criteria. The NYU policy paper notes that guaranteeing additionality, permanence and no leakage for centuries is unrealistic. Credits from different project types (for example, reforestation, cookstove distribution, renewable energy) have distinct risks and should not be treated as interchangeable.

Reality: Investors should evaluate project-level risks. Forestry projects can offer high carbon storage but face reversal risk; cookstove projects may be more durable but may suffer from monitoring issues. Portfolio diversification and discounting credits to account for uncertainty (for example, using multiple imperfect credits to offset one tonne) can reduce risk.

Myth 3: Nature-based offsets always deliver co-benefits. Nature-based projects often promise biodiversity and social benefits along with carbon. However, the WWF report shows that simplistic additionality tests lead to over-crediting and that many projects ignore leakage. Permanence is threatened by fires and pests, and social safeguards like free prior informed consent are not always upheld.

Reality: Co-benefits are possible but must be verified independently and reflected in premium pricing. Investors should favour projects that undergo biodiversity assessments, allocate robust buffer pools and share benefits equitably with Indigenous peoples and local communities.

Myth 4: The voluntary carbon market already has rigorous auditing. Auditing varies widely across registries. Corporate Accountability’s analysis found that 47.7 million credits retired in 2024 came from projects with high risk of non-additionality, non-permanence, leakage or over-crediting. The majority of problematic credits were issued by a single registry, underscoring inconsistent standards.

Reality: Investors should not assume registry approval is sufficient. Due diligence should include reviewing methodologies, baseline assumptions, buffer pool provisions and independent third-party assessments. Choosing credits from programmes with demonstrated integrity (for example, Woodland Carbon Code, Gold Standard, Verra’s improved methodologies) can reduce exposure.

Myth 5: Traditional MRV systems are adequate; digital technology adds little value. Many programmes rely on infrequent manual measurements, leaving room for error or fraud. Kenya’s 2024 carbon market regulations embrace digital MRV, requiring credits to be tracked with remote sensing and artificial intelligence. Downforce Technologies reports that digital MRV can reduce verification costs by around 70 per cent while improving accuracy and providing near real-time data.

Reality: Digital MRV is becoming the norm and offers investors transparency and auditable data trails. Projects using satellite-based biomass monitoring, smart sensors and blockchain-based registries can enhance trust, speed up credit issuance and reduce transaction costs.

What’s working

• Government guidance and codes: The UK consultation on voluntary carbon and nature markets proposes principles for high-integrity markets and emphasises internal decarbonisation first. The VCMI Claims Code of Practice and the Oxford Offsetting Principles help companies navigate claims and credit selection.
• High-quality credit standards: Programmes such as the Woodland Carbon Code (UK) and the Gold Standard have strict additionality, leakage and permanence rules, require accredited validation and verification and allocate substantial buffer pools.
• Digital MRV and traceability: Remote sensing and AI tools allow continuous project monitoring, reducing cost and increasing transparency. Kenya’s regulatory framework demonstrates how digital MRV can embed integrity into national schemes.
• Blended finance and public-private partnerships: Governments and multilateral institutions provide guarantees and concessional finance to de-risk high-integrity projects. This mobilises capital for forestry and conservation while supporting community benefits.

What isn’t working

• Over-crediting and poor baselines: Many projects issue credits based on optimistic baselines, exaggerating future deforestation risk or underestimating economic activity. Audits reveal that some registries routinely over-credit projects.
• Insufficient buffer pools: Fires, pests and land-use change can release stored carbon, yet buffer pools often lack sufficient reserves to compensate.
• Social and biodiversity impacts: Some projects have been linked to land grabs, displacement and violation of Indigenous rights. Biodiversity benefits are seldom verified or reported.
• Opacity and inconsistent standards: The fragmented market includes multiple registries and methodologies. Lack of transparency about methodologies, project monitoring and credit ownership undermines trust.

A quick framework for investors

1. Follow the mitigation hierarchy. Demand that investee companies reduce their own emissions first. Offsets should only address residual emissions.
2. Select credible programmes. Choose credits from registries with stringent methodologies, robust buffer pools and third-party validation. Avoid projects with inflated baselines or inadequate risk management.
3. Assess project-level risks. Examine additionality, permanence and leakage. Discount credits according to risk (for example, require multiple credits for high-reversal projects).
4. Check co-benefits and social safeguards. Look for projects that support biodiversity, provide equitable benefit-sharing and obtain free prior informed consent from Indigenous peoples and local communities.
5. Embrace digital MRV. Prioritise projects that use remote sensing, satellite data and blockchain to improve transparency and reduce verification costs.
6. Monitor and report. Ensure companies publicly disclose their credit strategy, underlying methodologies and progress toward science-based targets.

Fast-moving segments to watch

• Digital MRV platforms. Platforms offering near real-time satellite monitoring and AI- driven biomass estimation are scaling quickly and could become mandatory under new regulations.
• Carbon removal and long-duration storage. Projects that sequester carbon in geological formations or mineralise CO2 offer greater permanence than biological projects but remain costly.
• Hybrid offset models. Initiatives that blend nature-based and engineered solutions with risk-adjusted crediting can improve reliability.
• Policy harmonisation. Regulatory frameworks such as the UK consultation and international initiatives like CORSIA (for aviation) are raising the bar for quality and creating clearer demand signals.

Action checklist for investors

• Commission a thorough greenhouse-gas inventory for your organisation and set science-aligned targets.
• Limit offsets to a small portion of your mitigation strategy and invest in deep decarbonisation.
• Use high-quality credits from programmes with robust additionality, permanence and leakage rules.
• Prioritise projects that employ digital MRV and offer transparent data.
• Require projects to include biodiversity assessments and equitable benefit-sharing.
• Engage with policymakers and industry initiatives to support harmonised standards and digital infrastructure.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Why can’t we rely on offsets instead of reducing emissions? Offsets should address only residual emissions after you have maximised reductions within your value chain. Credits are not equivalent to cutting emissions because many are imperfect and there is limited supply of high-quality projects.

Q: What makes a high-quality credit? High-quality credits come from projects that are additional, permanent and account for leakage. They undergo rigorous third-party validation and verification, maintain buffer pools, and employ transparent MRV.

Q: How can digital MRV improve market integrity? Digital MRV uses remote sensing, AI and blockchain to monitor projects continuously, reducing verification costs and increasing transparency. Kenya’s regulations showcase how digital MRV can embed integrity into national carbon markets.

Q: Are nature-based credits always unreliable? Not necessarily. Well-designed nature projects can deliver durable carbon storage and biodiversity benefits. The key is rigorous additionality tests, adequate buffer reserves, leakage accounting and verified social safeguards.

Sources

• UK Government. (2024). Consultation on Voluntary Carbon and Nature Markets: Principles and VCMI Criteria. UK Government.
• NYU Institute for Policy Integrity. (2024). Imperfect Offsets: Challenges of Additionality and Permanence. NYU School of Law.
• WWF-UK. (2024). Nature-Based Solutions Report: Additionality, Permanence and Leakage Risks. WWF-UK.
• Corporate Accountability. (2025). Problematic Credits Analysis: Registry Concentration and Integrity Issues. Corporate Accountability.
• Downforce Technologies. (2024). Kenya Digital MRV Regulations: Remote Sensing and AI Cost Reductions. Downforce Technologies.