As carbon markets expand in response to intensifying climate threats, researchers at the University of Utah are sounding alarms over certain scientific shortcomings behind forest-based carbon credit programs.
In a recent study, William Anderegg, director of the university’s Wilkes Center for Climate Science and Policy, and his colleagues argue that current systems overestimate the climate benefits of so-called nature-based climate solutions—particularly large-scale tree planting.
Their paper, titled “Towards more effective nature-based climate solutions in global forests,” was published in prestigious scientific journal Nature.
“The central opportunity here is that we can leverage nature,” Dr. Anderegg was quoted as saying by Utah Public Radio. “Forests globally have pretty large potential to help with climate change mitigation.”
However, the research highlights three major flaws in current approaches: warming side effects, short-lived carbon storage, and market distortions.
Relevant: New Study: EU Forests Are Losing Their Carbon Absorbing Capacity
One concern is that some forests—especially dense, dark conifers—can absorb more sunlight, potentially negating the cooling effects of carbon sequestration by increasing surface temperatures.
Another challenge is permanence as trees may sequester carbon for decades, but that benefit can be quickly reversed if the forest burns or dies off.
A third issue, known as “leakage,” occurs when protecting one forest leads industries to harvest timber elsewhere, potentially offsetting gains.
According to Libby Blanchard, a co-author of the study, all this means that nature-based programs cannot be a standalone solution.
“Using forests to help with climate mitigation could be great, but it’s only going to be useful if we’re also rapidly reducing our fossil fuel emissions,” Dr. Blanchard concluded.
Read more: NYCW 2025: 34 Nations Launch Forest Finance Blueprint At New York Climate Week
