Climate Impact of Carbon Crediting Projects Significantly Overestimated
A Nature Communications study reveals that most carbon credit projects fail to deliver real emission reductions. After reviewing over 60 studies, it found only 16% of carbon credits had meaningful impact. While some projects, like deforestation prevention, showed results, others, such as clean cookstoves and SF6 destruction, had minimal effect. The findings underscore the need for stronger standards to ensure carbon credits genuinely address climate change.
A new meta-study published in Nature Communications reveals that emission reductions from climate protection Are Much Lower Than Claimed
The study, titled "Systematic Assessment of the Achieved Emission Reductions of Carbon Crediting Projects," was led by Dr. Benedict Probst, head of the Net Zero Lab at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition. Over 60 empirical studies were systematically reviewed by an international author team, uncovering significant quality issues with carbon credits.
Major Findings: The findings show that less than 16% of carbon credits from the evaluated projects represented actual emission Reductions
- Clean cookstove projects, which replaced traditional stoves, achieved only an 11% reduction in emissions.
- Destruction of the potent greenhouse gas SF6 resulted in a 16% reduction in emissions.
- Avoiding deforestation had a better outcome, with a 25% reduction.
- Reducing the harmful gas HFC-23 achieved a significant reduction of 68%.
Wind energy and improved forest management, however, had no notable impact. Data on projects aimed at avoiding industrial greenhouse gases, such as hydrofluorocarbon HFC-23 and sulfur hexafluoride SF6, revealed increased production of these gases once the plants could receive credits for emission reductions
“There is an urgent need to establish better rules for issuing carbon credits. All project types face systematic quality issues, and emission reduction quantification requires substantial improvements.”
