In recent months, there has been growing momentum to expand the use of carbon credits as a way for companies and countries to offset their greenhouse gas emissions. However, a large coalition of environmental and human rights organizations has come together to sound the alarm about the risks of relying too heavily on carbon offsetting schemes. In a joint statement, over 80 groups including Amnesty International expressed serious concerns that carbon credits could undermine real emissions reductions and delay urgent climate action.
The organizations argue that allowing businesses and nations to meet their climate commitments through purchasing carbon credits, rather than directly cutting their own emissions, is likely to slow down the rapid and equitable phase-out of fossil fuel production and use that scientists say is necessary to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. They warn that offsetting provides a way for major emitters to avoid making difficult but crucial changes to their operations and business models.
A key concern raised in the statement is that carbon offsetting schemes often lack transparency and rigorous verification. There are questions about whether many offset projects truly deliver the emissions reductions they claim. Even for legitimate offset projects, there are issues around permanence - for example, forests planted to sequester carbon can later be cut down or burned. The coalition argues that given these uncertainties, carbon credits cannot be treated as equivalent to actual emissions cuts by polluters.
The organizations also highlight that an over-reliance on carbon markets could reduce pressure to develop other important climate policy mechanisms. For instance, they argue it may decrease momentum for implementing "polluter pays" fees on emission-intensive industries. Such fees could generate revenue to fund climate adaptation and mitigation efforts, particularly in vulnerable developing countries. The statement warns against carbon markets becoming a distraction from developing more robust climate finance solutions.
There are also equity concerns around how carbon offset markets operate. Many offset projects are based in developing countries, raising questions about whether local communities truly benefit or have a say in how projects are implemented. Some critics argue that offset schemes allow wealthy nations and corporations to essentially pay to continue polluting, while poorer countries shoulder the burden of emissions reduction efforts.
The joint statement comes as carbon markets are set to be a major topic of discussion at upcoming UN climate negotiations. While proponents argue that carbon trading can help mobilize climate finance and incentivize emissions reductions, the coalition of NGOs is calling for much stricter limits on the use of offsets. They want to see offsetting restricted to sectors where emissions are truly difficult to eliminate, rather than as a widespread alternative to direct emissions cuts.
Ultimately, the organizations behind the statement are urging policymakers, businesses and the public to recognize carbon offsetting for what it is - a limited tool that cannot substitute for the systemic changes needed to rapidly decarbonize the global economy. They argue that allowing extensive use of carbon credits risks locking in high-emission business models and delaying the urgent transition away from fossil fuels. As climate impacts worsen, the coalition is calling for a renewed focus on achieving real, verifiable emissions reductions at the source.
