15. The Standards paradox

Return to The paradox of carbon credits
Move to 14. The Science paradox <> Move to 16. The Control paradox

Yesterday, we discussed a paradox around methodologies and science. Today’s paradox deals with the Standards. 

Everyone agrees: Quality and integrity are key for carbon credits. Not surprisingly, there is an increasing demand for enhanced scrutiny, quality ratings, and additional levels of certification. 

But here is a twist: Stricter certifications, reviews, ratings and audits increase costs, add complexity, and slow down timelines. 

Moreover, Standards may yield varying results depending on the standard’s approach. A project can achieve a high rating according to one Standard, but completely fail according to another one – because they prioritise different criteria.

Paradoxically, while these additional layers of oversight appease some critics, they also draw fire for diverting funds from projects to paperwork.

Have you encountered the Standards Paradox in your own work? How can we strike the delicate balance between demanding full accuracy and avoiding the risk of overburdening project proponents?

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 32 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.