This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
Global Carbon Credit Market Size is valued at 402.58 billion in 2022 and is predicted to reach 4431.81 billion by the year 2031 at a 30.72% CAGR during the forecast period for 2023-2031. InsightAce Study Carbon Credit Market[1]
I'm concerned by the amount of primary and non-independent sources used. EY Net Zero Centre's parent company sells consulting services relate to carbon offsets. The Nature Conservancy is directly involved in selling offsets, making them an unusable source. Same for "Flowcarbon.com". I've removed a few.
The first paragraph of § Approaches for increasing integrity repeats marketing claims by an industry trade group. The § Effectiveness section is based on sources that don't evaluate effectiveness (like the World Bank), and sources with industry ties.
Coming across this article, I was surprised that it was so positive towards carbon offsets, which seem to have an execrable reputation in news reports for being largely worthless. For example, we discuss issues with forestry credits, which is good, but a Bloomberg investigation found that the "most suspect type of offset" are renewable energy ones, which are among the most widespread and which we mention nearly uncritically. Maybe our WP:BESTSOURCES aren't as negative as newspapers, but this article likely has neutrality issues. DFlhb (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this aspect would benefit from further work. I wonder if the section title "limitations" is already not ideal as it sounds rather soft. Also, I think the lead should have a bit more content about the challenges and criticisms (e.g. in its last paragraph). I wonder if it would be good to have two separate sections: one on challenges and one on criticism, a bit like what was recently implemented at Sustainable Development Goals. EMsmile (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the popularity of credits and offsets has evolved over time: I'm studying how the positive versus negative reputation has evolved in time and will work to include a more historical perspective on their popularity. For example, this site refers to them as having a "checked history". [1]1241vanpan (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am planning to add a list of terms to the Definitions section. This would involve moving some of the "general features" defined in the next section forward to the definitions section, and then adding more terms. 1241vanpan (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that I agree with the changes you have done there. That list of terminology had become rather long and cumbersome. E.g. there's no need to include the Kyoto and Paris Agreements in that list. I have shortened the list now and moved some of it to the relevant places where they fitted (either in the main text or in the lead). I am still not sure if a "terminology list" is what we need or whether the previous "general features" section wasn't in fact better. I think it's not very encyclopedic or Wikipedia-style to have a long list of terms and their explanations at the start of an article. EMsmile (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the earlier presentation of these ideas in an “origins and general features” section was a better approach. We already have a “definitions” section, so to add a “terminology” section on top of that seems confusing - I think the items in the new “terminology” section are better described as general features. Dtetta (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the best title would be for the section. But the section is a very useful, if not essential, background to the topic that is not readily found here or elsewhere. I'd like to see the co-benefits and co-detriments mentioned together somewhere in the article. I had them in this section in an earlier version to emphasize that they shouldn't be considered independently of each other. 1241vanpan (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section could readily be recast as a paragraph that includes the same information rather than bullets with definitions. If this makes sense I could rewrite it in that form. 1241vanpan (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HiUser:Asto77, I agree with you that the article should explain more clearly what the difference between offset and credit is. It hints at it in the lead and also in the "definition" section but it uses wording that is hard to understand. But I don't think the solution is to add that little bullet point list that you had proposed.
I was curious to see what Chat-GPT said about this and asked it "explain in Wikipedia writing style what the difference between carbon offset and carbon credit is?" It said this (I can't judge if it's all 100% correct but is sounds fairly clear):
"Key Differences:
While both carbon offsets and carbon credits contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, they differ primarily in their approach and purpose. Carbon offsets focus on offsetting emissions through investments in emission reduction projects, whereas carbon credits involve the trading of permits to emit greenhouse gases within a regulated framework. Additionally, carbon offsets are typically voluntary and can be purchased by individuals or organizations looking to mitigate their carbon footprint, while carbon credits are often part of regulatory schemes implemented by governments to control emissions from industries and other sources.
In summary, carbon offsets and carbon credits are two distinct mechanisms for addressing climate change, with offsets emphasizing emission reduction projects and credits facilitating emissions trading within regulatory frameworks. Both play essential roles in efforts to combat global warming and transition to a low-carbon economy." - do we want to use any of this wording/content?
I actually find some of our sentences in key places of the article are difficult to understand.
In the first para of the lead: acarbon creditoroffset credit is a transferable financial instrument, that is a derivative of an underlying commodity.. Unclear. Just adding wikilinks doesn't mean the sentence doesn't have to be written in a way that is understandable for a lay audience.
In the first para of the definitions section: Both offsets and credits can move among the various markets they are traded in.. Also unclear. What does "can move among"? EMsmile (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HiUser:EMsmile I think all your suggested changes would be improvements. I would suggest deleting the 2 unclear sentences you mention.
I'm still left with a lack of clarity on the issue. e.g. can a carbon offset in some cases be a purchase of carbon credits? but the truth here may be these words are currently being used in different ways by different participants.
I just removed the sentence referring to the transferable financial instrument. I have always found that to be confusing, and the reference had no content. Patched the paragraph together as best I could. 1241vanpan (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 1241vanpan: your changes look good to me. It would be good to have a few more eyes and brains for this article - it's quite an important topic. It would also be good if someone could take another look at readability issues. Using the readability tool of the tool list on the right, I see plenty of sentence light up in red (meaning they are difficult to read). The readability score overall is currently 34.53 (out of 100). Not terrible but also not great. EMsmile (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been studying up on that to figure out the difference and I believe I now understand the different uses for the terms, which are linked but distinct from each other. Plenty of work left on this article... 1241vanpan (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
