In this series, illuminem and carbonparadox share 24 carbon paradoxes that demand our attention and discussion. Each one highlights a tension we must address to improve the way we value and protect our planet.

A project can only earn carbon credits if considered “additional.” This means that carbon finance made the project possible (although that doesn’t necessarily mean it paid for every element of the project). 

Carbon finance can de-risk speculative investments in some cases, while in others, it is used to jump-start new activities that will become profitable over time. In very few cases, it pays for an activity, such as industrial carbon capture and storage, that wouldn’t exist if not for carbon finance. 

Here is the paradox: The most efficient, impactful projects—those that bring significant benefits to local communities—often face the highest risk of not qualifying as “additional.” 

Conversely, the projects deemed most “additional” frequently lack a business case and remain fully dependent on ongoing carbon credit funding to stay viable. 

This is one of the most fundamental paradoxes of carbon credits–what’s your view?

Back to navigation

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.