David Funk, a dedicated forest preservationist in Ohio, is now being paid through a carbon credit program to protect his woodlands. His organization, Capstone Property Management, which manages 3,600 acres of forest, has joined the Family Forest Carbon Program (FFCP), an initiative by the American Forest Foundation and the Nature Conservancy. This program offers landowners payments over 20 years to avoid clear-cutting, alongside expert forest management advice. The goal is simple: healthier forests absorb more carbon, and companies buy these carbon credits to offset their emissions, making it seem like a win-win for everyone involved.

However, the reality of carbon credit programs is far more complicated, especially with the urgent need for effective climate action. A major concern is "additionality" – the idea that a carbon reduction should only happen because of the credit. Unfortunately, many programs have struggled to prove this. A significant 2024 analysis published in Nature found that only a quarter of forest carbon credit programs based on avoiding deforestation actually delivered on their promises, while those focused on improved forest management showed no clear reductions. This means companies might be paying for reductions that would have occurred anyway, undermining the fight against climate change.

The FFCP aims to tackle this problem head-on by using a unique approach. Instead of guessing future forest growth with complex models, they compare the growth of enrolled forests to similar control groups over time. Richard Campbell, from the American Forest Foundation, explains that by controlling for various factors, they can attribute any extra forest growth, and thus carbon absorption, directly to the program. Brent Sohngen, an economist at Ohio State University, even calls FFCP's method "state of the art."

Despite these efforts, some experts remain highly skeptical. John Sterman, an MIT professor, worries about whether these programs are truly "Additional, Verifiable, Immediate and Durable". He questions if landowners like Funk, who are already committed to forest preservation, are simply being paid for actions they would have taken anyway. Sterman points out that the current voluntary carbon market lacks strong regulation, likening it to a "Wild West" where sellers often verify their own claims, potentially leading to overestimations and credits that don't genuinely reduce emissions. He advocates for an oversight body similar to the Securities and Exchange Commission to ensure credibility in this vital climate solution market.

Another key concern Sterman raises is durability. A 20-year commitment, while helpful, is short compared to the hundreds of years carbon stays in the atmosphere. If forests are cut down after the program ends, the carbon released could negate earlier benefits. Campbell counters that the FFCP's cohort approach and long-term obligations help mitigate this risk. Yet, as Sterman emphasizes, the stakes are incredibly high: our planet's future depends on truly effective, long-lasting climate solutions, and without robust standards and oversight, even well-intentioned efforts might fall short. The urgent need to halt climate change demands that every carbon credit represents a genuine and lasting impact.