The Carbon Markets Need All Hands, Not Divided Camps

There was a moment at a recent climate gathering that crystallized a problem I’ve been hearing about from some stakeholders in the carbon markets.

In the context of a discussion around the implementation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, a participant suggested that if a credit is generated under a UN framework, it’s seen as “higher quality,” or inherently more credible, than a credit in the voluntary markets.

There was no elaboration on the reasons for this claim or the definition of quality. It was a throwaway comment, with no backing, and one that denigrates an entire market sector.

It wasn’t stated dramatically either. It was said plainly, as though it was a fact that explained everything.

But it illustrated a growing misconception that if a credit is linked to a compliance system, it’s automatically beyond reproach, while voluntary credits must be held to higher scrutiny, regardless of their real-world impact.

That mindset is entirely misguided.

It’s misguided because it overlooks decades of real climate finance mobilized by independent, non-compliance carbon crediting programs.

It sidelines the role that voluntary carbon markets have played in driving real, measurable impact, for the planet and people, in the absence of actionable outcomes from the UN negotiations process.

And it risks slowing us down at the very moment when we need to accelerate every credible climate solution on the table.

It’s true that compliance markets are continuing to provide additional opportunities and political momentum for their implementation, and it is extremely encouraging to see governments take steps forward in global climate cooperation through market-wide coalitions, international policy frameworks, and more dialogue across industries.

Discussions on how to implement Article 6 (especially Article 6.4, which aims to establish a centralized UN mechanism for the generation and transfer of emission reductions) represent real progress.

Independent crediting programs, like Verra’s, stepped up as negotiations continued. We created robust standards and credible carbon accounting mechanisms. Built systems. Channeled billions in climate finance to where it was needed most: forests in Brazil, cookstoves in Kenya, peatlands in Indonesia, renewable energy initiatives where they were otherwise unable.

And yes, the necessary scrutiny came. Mistakes were identified. And as problems presented (and still present) the opportunity to do better, we didn’t bury our heads in the sand. We responded.

Through rigorous internal reforms, third-party reviews, and alignment with the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market’s (ICVCM) Core Carbon Principles (CCPs), the voluntary carbon market has undergone one of the most significant quality transformations in its history, and is continuing to do so. Verra now has multiple methodologies approved as meeting the CCPs, the industry’s highest quality benchmarks, with more on the way.

And as Article 6 moves from ambition to implementation, we’re aligning with it. We’re working with governments, buyers, and project developers to ensure that the voluntary carbon market continues to serve as a model and an accelerator for compliance efforts, and that the markets complement and build on each other.

For example, many Verra-certified projects can already issue credits that are eligible to carry an Article 6 label, meaning that the credit is authorized by the relevant “host” country for use under Article 6.

Countries like Colombia, South Africa, and Singapore allow Verra-issued credits to be used for offsetting carbon tax liabilities under specific conditions set by their national frameworks.

And soon, airlines required to offset their emissions by purchasing credits under CORSIA, the UN’s global market-based measure to cap emissions from international flights, can do so with credits from high-quality voluntary crediting programs. Verra is one of the entities whose high-integrity credits can be used to meet this growing demand.

And all this is possible because of the extraordinary dedication of project proponents and validation/verification bodies (VVBs), who pour their heart and soul into work that delivers real decarbonization impact and meaningful benefits for communities.

So, there is no need to reinvent the wheel.

Because the systems built over the decades, by independent standards programs, have been stress-tested, reformed, and made stronger because of it.

So let’s get out of our own way. Let’s stop arguing that we need one particular credit or system over another. In fact, let’s drop the word “or” all together, and keep remembering that this ought to be an “and” market, not an “or” market. That all solutions need to be on the table.

Let’s grow the pie together, so we all benefit, most of all the planet and the communities most exposed to the impacts of climate change. And let’s do that while we scale these markets as an effective instrument for addressing the climate crisis while solving simultaneously for socioeconomic development and environmental protection.

Voluntary or compliance. Article 6 or not. If it’s driving climate action, it belongs in the pool of solutions that we must implement, given the extent of the climate challenge we face.

As George Pólya, a renowned mathematician, once said: “It is better to solve one problem five different ways, than to solve five problems one way.”