Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Oct;31(10):e70527.
doi: 10.1111/gcb.70527.

Demystifying the Romanticized Narratives About Carbon Credits From Voluntary Forest Conservation

Thales A P West  1   2 , Kelsey Alford-Jones  3 , Philippe Delacote  4   5 , Philip M Fearnside  6 , Ben Filewod  7 , Ben Groom  8 , Clemens Kaupa  9 , Andreas Kontoleon  2   10 , Tara L'Horty  4   5 , Benedict S Probst  2   11   12 , Federico Riva  1 , Claudia Romero  13 , Erin O Sills  14 , Britaldo Soares-Filho  15 , Da Zhang  16 , Sven Wunder  17   18 , Francis E Putz  13   19
Affiliations

Demystifying the Romanticized Narratives About Carbon Credits From Voluntary Forest Conservation

Thales A P West et al. Glob Chang Biol. 2025 Oct.

Abstract

Carbon offset projects aimed at avoiding deforestation and forest degradation, generally labeled "REDD+," are frequently promoted as a pivotal tool to mitigate climate change, promising to offer additional co-benefits for biodiversity and local communities. Despite this optimism, most positive impacts claimed by these initiatives in the voluntary carbon market (VCM) lack empirical support and are instead based on the hopeful narratives of stakeholders with clear conflicts of interest. We critically examine the scientific theories, concepts, and evidence regarding VCM's REDD+ projects, highlighting limitations on the quantification of their purported benefits that are inherent to the current design of carbon markets. Independent studies consistently point to shortcomings in the rigor and credibility of crediting methodologies and other procedures, which market players have been slow or reluctant to address. There is accumulating evidence that projects' climate and social impacts are often exaggerated due to a range of technical and practical shortcomings. We hope this work clarifies widespread misconceptions associated with REDD+ projects in the VCM and assists organizations and policymakers in their efforts to meaningfully mitigate climate change.

Keywords: REDD+; carbon offset; deforestation; forest degradation; greenwashing; voluntary carbon market.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Abessa, D., A. Famá, and L. Buruaem. 2019. “The Systematic Dismantling of Brazilian Environmental Laws Risks Losses on All Fronts.” Nature Ecology & Evolution 3: 510–511. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559‐019‐0855‐9.
    1. Anderegg, W. R. L., A. T. Trugman, G. G. Vargas, C. Wu, and L. Yang. 2025. “Current Forest Carbon Offset Buffer Pool Contributions Do Not Adequately Insure Against Disturbance‐Driven Carbon Losses.” Global Change Biology 31: e70251. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.70251.
    1. Andersson, K. P., S. M. Smith, L. J. Alston, et al. 2018. “Wealth and the Distribution of Benefits From Tropical Forests: Implications for REDD+.” Land Use Policy 72: 510–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.01.012.
    1. Arhin, A. A. 2014. “Safeguards and Dangerguards: A Framework for Unpacking the Black Box of Safeguards for REDD+.” Forest Policy and Economics 45: 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.05.003.
    1. Atmadja, S. S., A. E. Duchelle, V. De Sy, et al. 2022. “How Do REDD+ Projects Contribute to the Goals of the Paris Agreement?” Environmental Research Letters 17: 044038. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748‐9326/ac5669.

LinkOut - more resources