Return to The paradox of carbon credits
Move to 2. The Polluters paradox

A paradox that has puzzled forest advocates from the start: You can only earn carbon credits from forestry projects if you restore degraded trees or protect threatened ones.

This means you can’t earn credits unless there has been deforestation in the past – or there is a clear threat of deforestation now.

And here is the paradox: Countries and communities that have been the most effective stewards of the land get no carbon credits for their past “good” behaviour, while countries and communities that chopped their forests can point to their “bad” behaviour as proof of danger.

In other words: If you chopped your forest in the past or threaten to do so in the future, you qualify for carbon credits. If not, you have no “baseline” and don’t qualify.

It’s a sticky one. Nobody will disagree that we urgently need funding to help forested countries restore and protect their habitats.

How to solve this paradox?

In this series, two leading authorities in carbon uncover the secrets and contradictions of an entire industry – in the most fun and engaging way. Through 24 curated Carbon Paradoxes, you'll learn everything essential about this field, starting with the tensions we must address to make environmental markets thrive.

This article is also published on carbonparadox.org. illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.