Every week, CaptainDrawdown takes on one widespread misconception about carbon removal. This week: carbon credits.
The myth: Carbon credits are all scams. Companies buy them to greenwash, the accounting is fantasy, and the carbon never actually gets removed.
This one has enough truth in it to sting — which is exactly what makes it dangerous.
Why People Believe It (And Why They’re Not Entirely Wrong)
The skepticism didn’t come from nowhere. In 2023, a series of investigative reports — most notably from The Guardian and researchers at Berkeley — found that a large portion of Verra’s REDD+ avoided-deforestation credits had dramatically overstated their climate impact. Some projects claimed credit for forests that were never under threat.
That is a real problem. And it isn’t isolated. The voluntary carbon market has historically had:
- Additionality failures: crediting emissions reductions that would have happened anyway
- Permanence gaps: forests sold as 30-year carbon sinks that burn down in year 5
- Baseline manipulation: inflating projected emissions to make avoided-deforestation credits look more impressive
- Double-counting: both buyer and host country claiming the same tonne
The critics aren’t wrong about these flaws. They’re wrong to conclude that all carbon credits share them.
Not All Credits Are Created Equal
Here’s the taxonomy that matters:
Avoidance credits (the problematic category): Credit for not destroying something — a forest, a methane leak, a coal plant. These are inherently counterfactual. You’re proving a negative. Measurement is hard, permanence is fragile, and the incentive structure rewards inflated baselines.
Carbon Dioxide Removal credits (the more defensible category): Credit for physically pulling CO₂ out of the atmosphere and storing it. The molecule was in the air; now it’s not. You can measure it. You can verify it. Permanence depends on the storage medium, but the accounting is far more tractable.
Within CDR, quality varies enormously:
| Credit Type | Permanence | Measurability | Typical Quality |
|---|---|---|---|
| REDD+ (avoided deforestation) | Fragile (decades) | Poor | Variable / often poor |
| Cookstove offsets | N/A (avoidance) | Moderate | Mixed |
| Soil carbon | Decades | Moderate | Improving |
| Biochar | Centuries | Good | Generally solid |
| Enhanced weathering | Millennia | Improving | Emerging but rigorous |
| Direct Air Capture + storage | Geological | Excellent | High |
The Registries That Actually Have Standards
Not all registries are equal either. The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) launched its Core Carbon Principles (CCPs) in 2023 — the first independent, science-based benchmark for credit quality. Labels matter:
- Gold Standard and Verra VCS are the largest, with mixed quality across their portfolios
- Puro.earth focuses specifically on CDR and has rigorous methodology requirements
- Isometric operates as an independent scientific registry focused on engineered removals
- CarbonPlan publishes independent credit quality assessments (not a registry, but essential reading)
Microsoft, Stripe, and Shopify have all publicly committed to buying only CDR credits — not avoidance offsets. That distinction is doing a lot of work.
The Evidence-Based Rebuttal
The framing “carbon credits are scams” conflates two very different things:
- Some carbon offset projects have committed fraud or used poor methodology. True.
- Therefore all carbon market instruments are fraudulent. Non sequitur.
DAC+storage credits from companies like Climeworks or 1PointFive remove CO₂ that can be measured, verified, and stored in geological formations for millions of years. The molecule either is or isn’t in the rock. There is no counterfactual dispute. This is closer to buying a tonne of recycled steel than to buying a promise about a forest.
The right response to low-quality offsets isn’t to abandon carbon markets — it’s to demand higher standards, better MRV, and shift purchasing toward permanent CDR.
What Actually Matters: Your Due Diligence Framework
Before buying any carbon credit, ask four questions:
- Is this removal or avoidance? Removal is more defensible.
- How long is the carbon stored? Geological > centuries > decades.
- Who verified the methodology? Look for independent, science-based registries.
- What’s the registry’s track record? Check CarbonPlan’s database.
If a credit can’t answer these cleanly, it’s probably not worth buying.
The Verdict
Carbon credits aren’t all scams. But the market has enough bad actors that blanket skepticism is understandable — even rational, as a default for buyers without the time to do due diligence.
The solution is better standards, transparent MRV, and a clear preference for permanent CDR over avoidance offsets. The good news: that infrastructure is being built, faster than most people realize.
This is part of CaptainDrawdown’s weekly Misconception of the Week series. Each Friday, we take on one widespread belief about carbon removal that deserves a harder look. Follow along on Bluesky, X, and LinkedIn.