Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40352644›Full record

ArticlePNAS nexus2025

Embracing imperfection: Carbon offset markets must learn to mitigate the risk of overcrediting.

Bodie Cabiyo, Christopher B Field

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PNAS nexus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Bodie CabiyoStanford Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, 450 Jane Stanford Way, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4321-7253
Christopher B FieldStanford Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, 450 Jane Stanford Way, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1684-8247

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The role of carbon offset markets in accelerating climate action has been widely anticipated. Recently, fundamental questions have emerged about the role of carbon credits in the wake of widespread quality critiques of existing carbon offset projects. In tandem, many large corporate buyers are slowing their voluntary investments in carbon credits or shifting to less public vehicles for those investments. The discourse to date has focused on raising the quality bar of carbon credits, which is critical. However, it has broadly overlooked the fact that heterogeneous quality and uncertainty may be an inherent attribute of carbon projects. Carbon credits are an intangible good that may always have imperfect accounting. The success of carbon offset markets in part depends on embracing this imperfection, rather than obscuring or ignoring it. Thus, we propose that carbon offset markets need new mechanisms that account for-and encourage-iterative methodological improvements in how carbon credits are issued. These may include a variety of insurance-like mechanisms, warranties, and ex post adjustment mechanisms. They each work to guarantee that issued credits deliver on their promises, much like how carbon storage reversals are already guaranteed by credit registries. Market actors have already started testing such solutions, from true insurance products to buffer pools to discounted credit portfolios. Here, we highlight opportunities and challenges to achieve this goal, including the potential role of carbon registries, private actors, and large institutions.

Identifiers

PMID40352644
PMCPMC12063487

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.