Are Forest Offsets Broken? 5 Upgrades Experts Say We Need
Forest carbon credits promise to fund healthier, more resilient forests while offsetting emissions—but many programs still fall short. In a new interview, Clean Air Task Force scientist Rebecca Sanders-DeMott explains why today’s protocols often overstate climate benefits and what to do instead. She highlights four pillars that determine credit quality: durability, additionality, leakage, and long-term monitoring and verification. The proposed fixes include using up-to-date risk maps, revisiting baselines regularly or measuring them with comparison forests, tailoring leakage assumptions to local markets, and tightening monitoring as new tools emerge. Some registries and state programs are already moving, and buyers are demanding higher-quality credits, according to Yale Climate Connections.
Forest carbon credits were designed to do two things at once: keep forests standing and help organizations balance their emissions. In practice, many credits have not delivered the promised climate benefit, according to Rebecca Sanders-DeMott of the Clean Air Task Force. In an interview with Yale Climate Connections, she argues that the problem isn’t the idea of credits itself, but rules that are too weak or outdated for today’s risks and data.
At the heart of a trustworthy credit are four questions. First, durability: will the extra carbon actually stay locked away for decades despite wildfire, pests, disease, or logging? Second, additionality: would that carbon have been stored anyway without the project? Third, leakage: if harvesting shifts elsewhere to meet demand, do the emissions simply reappear off-site? Fourth, monitoring and verification: are projects measured accurately and continuously so credits match reality?
Sanders-DeMott says many protocols underestimate permanence risks and rely on fixed assumptions that don’t reflect changing climate, regulations, and markets. Baselines that don’t evolve can lead to over- or under-crediting. Default, one-size-fits-all leakage factors ignore local context. And monitoring that fails to incorporate newer tools—such as high-resolution remote sensing and AI-assisted analysis—can leave buyers paying for benefits that never materialize.
The fixes are straightforward but non-trivial. Protocols should integrate modern, place-specific risk data and maps for wildfire, insects, and disease. Baselines should be recalculated on a set schedule—say every five to ten years—or measured directly using comparable, non-enrolled “control” forests observed over time. Leakage accounting should reflect local market conditions rather than global defaults. And monitoring rules should be flexible enough to adopt the best available science and technology as it emerges.
There are signs of progress. Registries are revising protocols, and buyers increasingly seek newer, more rigorous credits. State compliance markets are also moving, with proposed updates that could set a higher bar for quality. For individuals and companies trying to buy better, a practical step is to look for newer protocols and transparent documentation, and to use independent scorecards where available—even as those scorecards must be updated frequently.
The message is not to abandon forest credits, but to strengthen them. Forests remain essential carbon sinks, and financing their protection is vital. With tougher, science-based rules, credits can more reliably reflect real, additional, and durable climate benefits—supporting both healthy forests and credible emissions strategies.