Friedlingstein, P. et al. Global Carbon Budget 2022. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 14, 4811–4900 (2022).
Griscom, B. W. et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 114, 11645–11650 (2017). This paper is a seminal global synthesis on the potential of nature-based climate solutions to contribute to climate mitigation.
Nolan, C. J., Field, C. B. & Mach, K. J. Constraints and enablers for increasing carbon storage in the terrestrial biosphere. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2, 436–446 (2021).
Seddon, N. Harnessing the potential of nature-based solutions for mitigating and adapting to climate change. Science 376, 1410–1416 (2022).
Ellis, P. W. et al. The principles of natural climate solutions. Nat. Commun. 15, 547 (2024). This review synthesizes the wide array of dimensions for high-quality nature-based climate solutions, including co-benefits and avoiding social harm.
Buma, B. et al. Expert review of the science underlying nature-based climate solutions. Nat. Clim. Change 14, 402–406 (2024).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).
Maguire, P. et al. A Green Growth Spurt: State of Forest Carbon Finance 2021 (Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace, 2021).
Donofrio, S., Procton, A., Weatherer, L., Calderon, C. & Bennett, G. All in on Climate: The Role of Carbon Credits in Corporate Climate Strategies (Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace, 2023).
Hale, T. et al. Assessing the rapidly-emerging landscape of net zero targets. Clim. Policy 22, 18–29 (2022).
Seddon, N. et al. Getting the message right on nature‐based solutions to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 1518–1546 (2021).
Haya, B. Policy brief: The California Air Resources Board’s U.S. Forest offset protocol underestimates leakage (2019).
Hurteau, M. D., Hungate, B. A. & Koch, G. W. Accounting for risk in valuing forest carbon offsets. Carbon Balance Manag. 4, 1 (2009).
Hurteau, M. D., Hungate, B. A., Koch, G. W., North, M. P. & Smith, G. R. Aligning ecology and markets in the forest carbon cycle. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11, 37–42 (2013).
Anderegg, W. R. et al. Climate-driven risks to the climate mitigation potential of forests. Science 368, eaaz7005 (2020). This review paper synthesizes the increasing climate risks to durability of nature-based climate solutions in forests and highlights key gaps between present science and policy.
Badgley, G. et al. California’s forest carbon offsets buffer pool is severely undercapitalized. Front. For. Glob. Change 5, 30426 (2022).
Badgley, G. et al. Systematic over‐crediting in California’s forest carbon offsets program. Glob. Change Biol. 28, 1433–1445 (2022).
Haya, B. K. et al. Quality Assessment of REDD+ Carbon Credit Projects (Berkeley Carbon Trading Project, 2023).
Haya, B. K. et al. Comprehensive review of carbon quantification by improved forest management offset protocols. Front. For. Glob. Change 6, 958879 (2023).
Stapp, J. et al. Little evidence of management change in California’s forest offset program. Commun. Earth Environ. 4, 331 (2023). This study demonstrates that a notable compliance forest offset programme shows little to no evidence of additionality in changing practices.
West, T. A. P., Börner, J., Sills, E. O. & Kontoleon, A. Overstated carbon emission reductions from voluntary REDD+ projects in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 117, 24188–24194 (2020).
West, T. A. P. et al. Action needed to make carbon offsets from forest conservation work for climate change mitigation. Science 381, 873–877 (2023). This landmark study documents very little additionality owing to poor baselines in several notable tropical Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) projects.
Coffield, S. R. et al. Using remote sensing to quantify the additional climate benefits of California forest carbon offset projects. Glob. Change Biol. 28, 6789–6806 (2022).
Randazzo, N. A., Gordon, D. R., & Hamburg, S. P. Improved assessment of baseline and additionality for forest carbon crediting. Ecol. Appl. 33, e2817 (2023).
Guizar‐Coutiño, A., Jones, J. P. G., Balmford, A., Carmenta, R. & Coomes, D. A. A global evaluation of the effectiveness of voluntary REDD+ projects at reducing deforestation and degradation in the moist tropics. Conserv. Biol. 36, e13970 (2022).
Macintosh, A. et al. Australian human-induced native forest regeneration carbon offset projects have limited impact on changes in woody vegetation cover and carbon removals. Commun. Earth Environ. 5, 149 (2024). This study observes little additionality in a notable forest regeneration carbon offset programme using time-series satellite data.
Live Carbon Prices Today. CarbonCredits.com https://carboncredits.com/carbon-prices-today/ (2024).
Novick, K. A. et al. Informing nature‐based climate solutions for the United States with the best‐available science. Glob. Change Biol. 28, 3778–3794 (2022).
Seddon, N., Turner, B., Berry, P., Chausson, A. & Girardin, C. A. J. Grounding nature-based climate solutions in sound biodiversity science. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 84–87 (2019).
Cook-Patton, S. C. et al. Protect, manage and then restore lands for climate mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 1027–1034 (2021).
Novick, K. A. et al. We need a solid scientific basis for nature-based climate solutions in the United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 121, e2318505121 (2024).
Pande, R. Fixing forest carbon credits. Science 383, eadn4923 (2024).
Chang, C. H. et al. Global evidence of human well-being and biodiversity impacts of natural climate solutions. Nat. Sustain. 8, 75–85 (2024).
Bonan, G. B. Forests and climate change: forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. Science 320, 1444–1449 (2008).
Jackson, R. B. et al. Protecting climate with forests. Environ. Res. Lett. 3, 044006 (2008).
Williams, C. A., Gu, H. & Jiao, T. Climate impacts of U.S. forest loss span net warming to net cooling. Sci. Adv. 7, eaax8859 (2021).
Bright, R. M., Zhao, K., Jackson, R. B. & Cherubini, F. Quantifying surface albedo and other direct biogeophysical climate forcings of forestry activities. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 3246–3266 (2015).
Hasler, N. et al. Accounting for albedo change to identify climate-positive tree cover restoration. Nat. Commun. 15, 2275 (2024). This study provides a global analysis of where albedo change from restoration or reforestation activities greatly alters the net climate impact.
Randerson, J. T. et al. The impact of boreal forest fire on climate warming. Science 314, 1130–1132 (2006).
Kuusinen, N. et al. Measured and modelled albedos in Finnish boreal forest stands of different species, structure and understory. Ecol. Model. 284, 10–18 (2014).
Amiro, B. D. et al. The effect of post-fire stand age on the boreal forest energy balance. Agric. For. Meteorol. 140, 41–50 (2006).
Rohatyn, S., Rotenberg, E., Tatarinov, F., Carmel, Y. & Yakir, D. Large variations in afforestation-related climate cooling and warming effects across short distances. Commun. Earth Environ. 4, 18 (2023).
Weber, J. et al. Chemistry-albedo feedbacks offset up to a third of forestation’s CO2 removal benefits. Science 383, 860–864 (2024).
Teuling, A. J. et al. Observational evidence for cloud cover enhancement over western European forests. Nat. Commun. 8, 14065 (2017).
Seidl, R. et al. Forest disturbances under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 395–402 (2017).
Coop, J. D. et al. Wildfire-driven forest conversion in western North American landscapes. BioScience 70, 659–673 (2020).
Davis, K. T. et al. Wildfires and climate change push low-elevation forests across a critical climate threshold for tree regeneration. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 116, 6193–6198 (2019).
Joos, F. et al. Carbon dioxide and climate impulse response functions for the computation of greenhouse gas metrics: a multi-model analysis. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13, 2793–2825 (2013).
Archer, D. et al. Atmospheric lifetime of fossil fuel carbon dioxide. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 37, 117–134 (2009).
Matthews, H. D. & Caldeira, K. Stabilizing climate requires near‐zero emissions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, 2007GL032388 (2008).
Allen, M. R. et al. Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature 458, 1163–1166 (2009).
Matthews, H. D., Gillett, N. P., Stott, P. A. & Zickfeld, K. The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions. Nature 459, 829–832 (2009).
Meinshausen, M. et al. Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature 458, 1158–1162 (2009).
Zickfeld, K., Eby, M., Matthews, H. D. & Weaver, A. J. Setting cumulative emissions targets to reduce the risk of dangerous climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 106, 16129–16134 (2009).
Allen, M. R. et al. Net zero: science, origins, and implications. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 47, 849–887 (2022).
Matthews, H. D. et al. Temporary nature-based carbon removal can lower peak warming in a well-below 2 °C scenario. Commun. Earth Environ. 3, 65 (2022).
Cullenward, D. A framework for assessing the climate value of temporary carbon storage. Carbon Market Watch https://carbonmarketwatch.org/publications/a-framework-for-assessing-the-climate-value-of-temporary-carbon-storage/ (2023).
Fankhauser, S. What next on net zero? One Earth 4, 1520–1522 (2021).
Cullenward, D., Badgley, G. & Chay, F. Carbon offsets are incompatible with the Paris Agreement. One Earth 6, 1085–1088 (2023).
Oldfield, E. E. et al. Crediting agricultural soil carbon sequestration. Science 375, 1222–1225 (2022).
Wu, C. et al. Uncertainty in US forest carbon storage potential due to climate risks. Nat. Geosci. 16, 422–429 (2023). This study demonstrates substantially increasing climate-driven disturbance risks to durability for US forests and how it is likely to affect offset programmes.
Wu, C. et al. Carbon reversal risks from climate-sensitive disturbances in US forests. In AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts Vol. 2023, GC54D-06 (2023).
Anderegg, W. R. et al. Future climate risks from stress, insects and fire across US forests. Ecol. Lett. 25, 1510–1520 (2022).
Anderegg, W. R. L., Trugman, A. T., Vargas G., G., Wu, C. & Yang, L. Current forest carbon offset buffer pool contributions do not adequately insure against disturbance‐driven carbon losses. Glob. Change Biol. 31, e70251 (2025).
Kriebel, D. et al. The precautionary principle in environmental science. Environ. Health Perspect. 109, 871–876 (2001).
Schneider, S. H. & Lane, J. Dangers and thresholds in climate change and the implications for justice. In Fairness in Adaptation to Climate Change (eds Adger, W. N., Paavola, J., Huq, S. & Mace M. J.) (MIT Press, 2006).
McFarland, B. J. Carbon reduction projects and the concept of additionality. Sustain. Dev. Law Policy 11, 15–18 (2011).
Bushnell, J. B. The Economics of Carbon Offsets, Working Paper 16305 (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2010).
McFarland, B. Origins, Development and Potential of the International REDD Market. Master’s thesis, American Univ. (2010).
West, T. A. P., Bomfim, B. & Haya, B. K. Methodological issues with deforestation baselines compromise the integrity of carbon offsets from REDD+. Glob. Environ. Change 87, 102863 (2024).
California Air Resources Board Offset Credit Regulatory Conformance and Invalidation Guidance (California Air Resources Board, 2015).
Seyller, C. et al. The ‘virtual economy’ of REDD+ projects: does private certification of REDD+ projects ensure their environmental integrity? Int. For. Rev. 18, 231–246 (2016).
Delacote, P., Le Velly, G. & Simonet, G. Revisiting the location bias and additionality of REDD+ projects: the role of project proponents status and certification. Resour. Energy Econ. 67, 101277 (2022).
van Kooten, G. C., Bogle, T. N. & de Vries, F. P. Forest carbon offsets revisited: shedding light on darkwoods. For. Sci. 61.2, 370–380 (2015).
Xu, L. et al. Changes in global terrestrial live biomass over the 21st century. Sci. Adv. 7, eabe9829 (2021).
Wang, J. A., Baccini, A., Farina, M., Randerson, J. T. & Friedl, M. A. Disturbance suppresses the aboveground carbon sink in North American boreal forests. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 435–441 (2021).
Nepstad, D. et al. Re-framing REDD+ (Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM), 2012).
Busch, J. et al. Structuring economic incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation within Indonesia. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 109, 1062–1067 (2012).
Teo, H. C. et al. Uncertainties in deforestation emission baseline methodologies and implications for carbon markets. Nat. Commun. 14, 8277 (2023).
Nepstad, D. et al. Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains. Science 344, 1118–1123 (2014).
Hansen, M. C. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342, 850–853 (2013).
Mertz, O. et al. Uncertainty in establishing forest reference levels and predicting future forest-based carbon stocks for REDD+. J. Land Use Sci. 13, 1–15 (2018).
Schneider, L., Fuessler, J., Oberpriller, Q. & Spalding-Fecher, R. The ICVCM approval of three REDD methodologies presents risks to the integrity of the initiative. Öko-Institut https://www.oeko.de/blog/the-icvcm-approval-of-three-redd-methodologies-presents-risks-to-the-integrity-of-the-initiative (2024).
Haya, B. Re: Comments on California’s proposed REDD program and linkage with Acre, Brazil (2016).
Teo, H. C., Sarira, T. V., Tan, A. R. P., Cheng, Y. & Koh, L. P. Charting the future of high forest low deforestation jurisdictions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 121, e2306496121 (2024).
Gan, J. & McCarl, B. A. Measuring transnational leakage of forest conservation. Ecol. Econ. 64, 423–432 (2007).
Ingalls, M. L., Meyfroidt, P., To, P. X., Kenney-Lazar, M. & Epprecht, M. The transboundary displacement of deforestation under REDD+: problematic intersections between the trade of forest-risk commodities and land grabbing in the Mekong region. Glob. Environ. Change 50, 255–267 (2018).
Filewod, B. & McCarney, G. Avoiding carbon leakage from nature-based offsets by design. One Earth 6, 790–802 (2023).
Pan, W., Kim, M.-K., Ning, Z. & Yang, H. Carbon leakage in energy/forest sectors and climate policy implications using meta-analysis. For. Policy Econ. 115, 102161 (2020).
Curtis, P. G., Slay, C. M., Harris, N. L., Tyukavina, A. & Hansen, M. C. Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science 361, 1108–1111 (2018).
Wang, J. A., Randerson, J. T., Goulden, M. L., Knight, C. A. & Battles, J. J. Losses of tree cover in California driven by increasing fire disturbance and climate stress. AGU Adv. 3, e2021AV000654 (2022).
European Union. Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims (Green Claims Directive). EUR-Lex https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2023%3A0166%3AFIN (2023).
State of California. AB-1305 Voluntary carbon market disclosures. California Legislative Information https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1305 (2023).
Isometric Standard. Validation and verification process. Isometric https://registry.isometric.com/standard#validation-and-verification-process (2025).
Duflo, E., Greenstone, M., Pande, R. & Ryan, N. Truth-telling by third-party auditors and the response of polluting firms: experimental evidence from India. Q. J. Econ. 128, 1499–1545 (2013).
Trouwloon, D., Streck, C., Chagas, T. & Martinus, G. Understanding the use of carbon credits by companies: a review of the defining elements of corporate climate claims. Glob. Chall. 7, 2200158 (2023).
Ivanova, I. Delta faces lawsuit alleging its ‘carbon-neutral’ claim is greenwashing. CBS News https://www.cbsnews.com/news/delta-lawsuit-cabon-neutral-greenwashing-carbon-offsets/ (2023).
Airlines Facing ‘Greenwashing’ Litigation on Three Continents. Jones Day https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2023/08/ airlines-facing-greenwashing-litigation-on-three-continents (2023).
Trencher, G., Nick, S., Carlson, J. & Johnson, M. Demand for low-quality offsets by major companies undermines climate integrity of the voluntary carbon market. Nat. Commun. 15, 6863 (2024).
Broekhoff, D., Gillenwater, M., Colbert-Sangree, T. & Cage, P. Securing Climate Benefit: A Guide to Using Carbon Offsets. https://offsetguide.org/ (2019).
Giles, C. What carbon offsets tell us about why environmental programs fail. The Regulatory Review https://www.theregreview.org/2023/12/18/ giles-what-carbon-offsets-tell-us-about- why-environmental-programs-fail/ (2023).
Blanchard, L. et al. Funding forests’ climate potential without carbon offsets. One Earth 7, 1147–1150 (2024).
Kirschbaum, M. U. F. Temporary carbon sequestration cannot prevent climate change. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 11, 1151–1164 (2006).
European Union. Unfair commercial practices directive. European Commission https://commission.europa.eu/law/ law-topic/consumer-protection-law/unfair- commercial-practices-and-price-indication /unfair-commercial-practices-directive_en (2021).
SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard. Version 2.0 – Initial Consultation Draft with Narrative. Science Based Targets Initiative https://sciencebasedtargets.org/ consultations/cnzs-v2-initialdraft (2025).
Benson, S. et al. Above and Beyond: An SBTi Report on the Design and Implementation of Beyond Value Chain Mitigation (BVCM) Version 1.0. Science Based Targets Initiative https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/Above-and-Beyond-Report-on-BVCM.pdf (2024).
Hewlett, O., Magrath, D., Höglund, R., Hutton, W. & Stanton, I. Funding Beyond Value Chain Mitigation: Step by Step Guidance for Organisations Taking Responsibility for Their Emissions Version 1.0. Gold Standard https://www.goldstandard.org/publications/ funding-beyond-value-chain-mitigation (2024).
Moore, F. C. et al. Synthesis of evidence yields high social cost of carbon due to structural model variation and uncertainties. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 121, e2410733121 (2024).
Rennert, K. et al. Comprehensive evidence implies a higher social cost of CO2. Nature 610, 687–692 (2022).
Tol, R. S. J. Social cost of carbon estimates have increased over time. Nat. Clim. Change 13, 532–536 (2023).
Rogelj, J. et al. Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 °C. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 325–332 (2018).
Prest, B. C., Rennels, L., Errickson, F. & Anthoff, D. Equity weighting increases the social cost of carbon. Science 385, 715–717 (2024).
Lou, J., Hultman, N., Patwardhan, A. & Mintzer, I. Corporate motivations and co-benefit valuation in private climate finance investments through voluntary carbon markets. Npj Clim. Action 2, 32 (2023).
Iovino, R., Testa, F. & Iraldo, F. Do consumers understand what different green claims actually mean? An experimental approach in Italy. J. Advert. 53, 200–214 (2024).
Environmental Claims in Advertising. Qualitative Research Report. American Student Assistance https://www.asa.org.uk/static/6830187f-cc56-4433-b53a4ab0fa8770fc/CCE- Consumer-Understanding-Research-2022Final-090922.pdf (2022).
Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A. & Gelabert, L. Does greenwashing pay off? Understanding the relationship between environmental actions and environmental legitimacy. J. Bus. Ethics 144, 363–379 (2017).
Höglund, R. & Mitchell-Larson, E. Bridging the ambition gap: a framework for scaling corporate funds for carbon removal and wider climate action. Carbon Gap https://carbongap.org/wp-content/ uploads/2022/11/Ambition_Gap_Report_Nov22.pdf (2022).
