Loading...
BETA – We are refining the platform. Your feedback helps us improve. Share feedback
Loading...
Publish your own articles and insights on Citable ESG
Pro organisations publish unlimited content, strengthening their AI Citability Score and visibility to procurement teams, investors, clients, customers, partners, and followers.
The GHG Protocol's forest carbon accounting rules are fracturing under pressure from competing interests. An expert has resigned from the standard-setting process, citing disagreement over how organisations should count forestry emissions and removals in their carbon footprints.
This isn't the first departure. The tension reflects a deeper problem: forest carbon is politically charged and commercially valuable, making objective methodology harder than it sounds. Companies want flexibility in how they account for nature-based removals. Scientists want rigour that prevents double-counting and overstating sequestration. Investors want assurance that the numbers mean something.
The GHG Protocol sets the baseline for most corporate carbon accounting worldwide. If its forest rules fracture credibility – or worse, enable systematic underreporting – every net-zero target downstream loses reliability. Regulators already scrutinise forest offsets; the EU Emissions Trading System doesn't accept international forestry credits without strict conditions. The SEC is tightening disclosure requirements around climate claims. That backdrop makes this internal dispute material, not academic.
The core issue: how do you verify that a company's forest offset actually removes carbon, that it persists for decades, and that it wouldn't have happened anyway? There's no single answer. Different methodologies produce wildly different carbon values for the same hectare. Industry prefers loose rules; the climate science community doesn't.
Who decides? That's the real question now. If the GHG Protocol loses expert buy-in, credibility shifts toward fragmentary alternatives – regional protocols, private standards, corporate self-assessment. That's worse for comparability and worse for preventing greenwashing.
Does the standard-setter have the governance structure to resolve this conflict, or will forest carbon become another space where corporations and scientists talk past each other?
