Carbon offsets primer

The document examines the systemic failures of carbon offsetting, highlighting that most credits—particularly those for forestry and renewable energy—lack additionality and environmental integrity. It argues that offsetting often leads to an overall increase in emissions by delaying necessary mitigation and allowing continued investment in high-emitting technologies. The briefing concludes that carbon avoidance and reduction offsets have no place in ambitious climate policies, recommending that priority be given to direct emissions cuts and non-market-based climate finance.

• Carbon offsetting is fundamentally incompatible with climate science and IPCC guidance because it does not cause a net reduction in emissions and can delay essential emission cuts.
• A significant majority of carbon credits do not represent real emissions reductions; a 2024 review of 20% of all issued offsets found that less than 16% constituted real reductions, while the remaining 84% resulted in 812 million tonnes of emissions.
• Many carbon offsets lack 'additionality,' meaning the emissions reductions would have occurred regardless of the project. For example, 52% of 1,350 wind farms in India would have been built without CDM credits.
• Forestry offsets are particularly prone to overstatement and fraud; an investigation into Verra found the certifier overstated deforestation threats by 400% on average, meaning over 90% of its forest offsets are not genuine.
• The assumption that all carbon is equivalent is scientifically incorrect, as carbon stored in nature is less permanent and carries a higher risk of leaking back into the atmosphere than fossil fuels left in the ground.
• The voluntary carbon market (VCM) suffers from a massive oversupply of low-quality credits, which suppresses prices to USD 1-10 per tonne, far below the USD 40-100 range estimated to be consistent with Paris Agreement goals.
• Carbon offset projects have been linked to human rights abuses, land conflicts, and fraud, creating significant reputational and litigation risks for companies, as seen in a 2023 German court ruling against Eurowings.
• Carbon removal technology is currently unfeasible at scale and should be reserved only for 'hard-to-abate' residual emissions and historical CO2 removal, rather than as a corporate compensation tool.

APA

Team, Z. (2025). Carbon offsets primer. Zero Carbon Analytics. https://zerocarbon-analytics.org/insights/briefings/carbon-offsets-primer-2/

Chicago

Team, ZCA. Carbon offsets primer. Zero Carbon Analytics, 2025. https://zerocarbon-analytics.org/insights/briefings/carbon-offsets-primer-2/.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Team |first1=ZCA |title=Carbon offsets primer |publisher=Zero Carbon Analytics |date=26 February 2025 |url=https://zerocarbon-analytics.org/insights/briefings/carbon-offsets-primer-2/ |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{team2025carbon, author = {Team, ZCA}, title = {{Carbon offsets primer}}, institution = {Zero Carbon Analytics}, year = {2025}, month = feb, url = {https://zerocarbon-analytics.org/insights/briefings/carbon-offsets-primer-2/}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }