No, Carbon Markets Aren’t a Moral Failure. Giving Them Up Would Be.

ActionAid Ireland says carbon markets “almost always fail.” The facts, and the communities they support, tell a very different story.

If a recent opinion article (external) in The Irish Times is to be believed, carbon markets “almost always fail” and offer nothing but false promises.

That makes for a strong headline, but it’s far from the truth.

The article’s author, Karol Balfe of ActionAid Ireland, calls carbon markets a “moral failure.” But I’ve seen them keep forests standing, fund schools, and put food on the table, especially in local communities in the Global South.

We can’t both be right, so let’s look at the evidence.

Balfe claims that carbon markets “almost always fail to provide any real climate benefit,” citing the infamous Guardian piece that claimed 90% of rainforest offsets certified by Verra were “phantom credits.”

What she doesn’t say is that this piece has been largely debunked by independent analysts.

For example, one of the most influential scientific journals in the world, Nature Climate Change, found that such projects have a solid scientific basis for delivering high-integrity carbon mitigation at scale.

Cambridge University researchers say that REDD+ projects slow deforestation and degradation significantly particularly in high-threat regions.

Independent rating agencies say the figures cited in the Guardian are “hugely overstated.”

The list goes on.

Yes, like in any market, there have been missteps in some carbon projects. Yes, like in any market, there have been bad actors and even lawbreakers. That’s true of every sector in the world.

But to dismiss the entire mechanism as something that “simply does not work” is an oversimplification that does more harm than good.

I can’t help but wonder if critics of this “failed” system have visited carbon projects.

Like the TIST Program in Kenya, where over 230,000 smallholder farmers have planted 26 million trees, sequestered more than 6 million tonnes of CO₂, and used carbon revenue to fund food, education, and resilience.

Or the Delta Blue Carbon project in Pakistan, which has restored 600,000 hectares of mangroves, protected 11 vulnerable species, creating created 15,000 jobs, and is expected to sequester 142 million tonnes of CO₂.

Or the Mahogani project in India, where over 4,000 farmers have planted 3.1 million mahogany trees, that have boosted crop yields, created new income streams, and sequestered 1 million tonnes of CO₂.

Or the Corazón Verde del Chaco project in Paraguay, which has protected 32,000 hectares of forest, while safeguarding jaguars and other endangered species, avoiding the emission of 5.6 million tonnes of CO₂, and providing a viable, community-led alternative to deforestation.

These aren’t failures. They are real projects, delivering measurable climate benefits and life-changing community impacts every day.

And it’s not just project developers saying so. Last year, ten west African countries (nine of which are least developed countries) signed a letter supporting carbon credits as a tool to address the climate crisis.

Here’s where we can agree with Balfe: carbon markets must keep improving. They must be transparent, deliver tangible benefits, and have mechanisms in place that weed out bad actors. On that, there’s no disagreement.

But her proposed “alternatives” (rapid decarbonization, progressive taxation, vast increases in public climate finance, and fully funded just transitions) read more like a wish list than a workable plan.

Of course we need all of those things. The question is when and how.

These measures are politically stalled, chronically underfunded, and often decades away from scale…if they ever arrive.

Meanwhile, communities facing climate impacts today cannot eat promises of future taxation reform.

They cannot replace lost livelihoods with unfulfilled finance pledges. And they cannot wait for the “perfect” system while their forests are being cut down right now.

The hard truth is this: we don’t have the luxury of pitting one solution against another.

We need rapid decarbonization and high-integrity carbon markets.

We need public finance and private capital flowing through proven mechanisms that already deliver results on the ground.

Balfe wants to throw away one of the few functioning tools we have with no thought for the consequences on the climate or the communities that rely on it.

And that’s what well-run carbon projects deliver every single day.

The alternative isn’t just worse. It’s unthinkable.