Emissions reduced or avoided abroad must be verifiable, quantifiable, and permanent. They must not be counted by both countries, and they must meet a criterion called additionality. This means a climate project only counts for an offset if the emission reductions would not have happened without external funding.
Independent analyses, such as a recent [study](https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112823-064813) by researchers from Oxford and the University of Pennsylvania, also raise doubts about the effectiveness of emission offsetting strategies. The quality of carbon certificates – including those voluntarily purchased by individuals, companies, and public entities – is problematic, according to the study. Most widely used offset programs continue to greatly overestimate their probable climate impact, often by a factor of five to ten or more, the authors argue.
Federica Dossi of Carbon Market Watch, an NGO based in Brussels, says that the rules under Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement are not robust enough to ensure transparent trading of high-quality credits. “Article 6.2 is based on the exchange of emissions between states without centralised oversight, leaving environmental integrity, transparency, and other aspects to the discretion of the participating countries,” she told Swissinfo in an email, adding that developed countries should adopt more ambitious decarbonisation measures within their own borders.
“They should not use Article 6 to meet their climate targets. They bear significant historical responsibility for emissions and must prioritise domestic action,” she said. Article 6 was designed to increase ambition in national climate goals – not replace domestic efforts, Dossi adds.
Swiss authorities say all offsetting projects must meet high standards and are regularly monitored. But the FOEN acknowledges that the impact on climate protection cannot always be proven with absolute certainty, since the emissions reductions are calculated in relation to a hypothetical future without the project.
“Switzerland is a forerunner in this field, and there are still some methodological issues to clarify. We have to verify requirements that no one has ever examined before. It’s a process of continuous learning, but we’re on the right track,” Reto Burkard says.
The Swiss government will present a report on the climate effectiveness of emission compensation by autumn 2026.
couple_suisse69 on
I thought it was common knowledge that carbon offsetting was a scam with Chinese companies giving official certificates but without doing anything else
2 commenti
From the article –
# Why is emission offsetting controversial?
Emissions reduced or avoided abroad must be verifiable, quantifiable, and permanent. They must not be counted by both countries, and they must meet a criterion called additionality. This means a climate project only counts for an offset if the emission reductions would not have happened without external funding.
Environmental and sustainable development organisations say many projects do not meet these criteria. For example, the electric buses in Thailand would have been put in place [even without Swiss funding](https://www.alliancesud.ch/fr/de-nouveaux-bus-electriques-bangkok-ne-remplacent-pas-la-protection-du-climat-en-suisse), the groups say.
Independent analyses, such as a recent [study](https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112823-064813) by researchers from Oxford and the University of Pennsylvania, also raise doubts about the effectiveness of emission offsetting strategies. The quality of carbon certificates – including those voluntarily purchased by individuals, companies, and public entities – is problematic, according to the study. Most widely used offset programs continue to greatly overestimate their probable climate impact, often by a factor of five to ten or more, the authors argue.
Federica Dossi of Carbon Market Watch, an NGO based in Brussels, says that the rules under Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement are not robust enough to ensure transparent trading of high-quality credits. “Article 6.2 is based on the exchange of emissions between states without centralised oversight, leaving environmental integrity, transparency, and other aspects to the discretion of the participating countries,” she told Swissinfo in an email, adding that developed countries should adopt more ambitious decarbonisation measures within their own borders.
“They should not use Article 6 to meet their climate targets. They bear significant historical responsibility for emissions and must prioritise domestic action,” she said. Article 6 was designed to increase ambition in national climate goals – not replace domestic efforts, Dossi adds.
Swiss authorities say all offsetting projects must meet high standards and are regularly monitored. But the FOEN acknowledges that the impact on climate protection cannot always be proven with absolute certainty, since the emissions reductions are calculated in relation to a hypothetical future without the project.
“Switzerland is a forerunner in this field, and there are still some methodological issues to clarify. We have to verify requirements that no one has ever examined before. It’s a process of continuous learning, but we’re on the right track,” Reto Burkard says.
The Swiss government will present a report on the climate effectiveness of emission compensation by autumn 2026.
I thought it was common knowledge that carbon offsetting was a scam with Chinese companies giving official certificates but without doing anything else