Climate action must not fail. There must be absolute certainty that the solutions posed to solve the most pressing global crisis are guaranteed to work at the scale and in the timeframe needed, and that they align with—rather than further erode—justice. Should we fail, the consequence will be millions and millions of lives and tens of trillions of dollars, annually.
Against this backdrop, this research assesses the most recent performance of the largest offset projects that comprise the voluntary carbon market (VCM) to help determine if it is setting the world up for galvanized climate action or exacerbating climate action failure. To do this, it analyses 47 of the largest carbon offset projects in 2024 and explores whether recent attempts to fix repeated failures of the VCM are leading to global emissions reductions.
- The new report “Built to Fail? World’s largest carbon offset projects unlikely to deliver promised emissions reductions despite ongoing reforms,” reveals that in 2024, the VCM 2.0 appeared to be saturated with a vast volume of projects and offsets that could not be reliably counted on to deliver the promised emissions reductions. We refer to these types of projects and offsets as “problematic.” Specifically, the research finds that:
More than 47.7 million problematic offsets credits were retired through 43 of the world’s largest projects in 2024. - From the 47 projects included in this analysis (all of which are in the top 100 projects globally for 2024), 80% of the offsets credits retired were problematic. These problematic offsets credits were issued by 43 problematic projects, which alone account for nearly a quarter of all credits retired in the VCM in 2024.
- From the 43 problematic projects, 35 projects retired credits that are particularly unlikely to deliver the promised emission reductions, including 14 of the 25 largest offsets projects globally.
- Nearly all, or 93%, of the projects retiring problematic offsets credits are located in the Global South, countries that have historically contributed the least to climate change and that are already experiencing the greatest impacts. This includes five projects that are located in Brazil, the upcoming host of the U.N. climate talks (COP30) in November 2025. Only 3 out of 43 projects were based in the Global North—one in South Korea and two in the United States.
- Verra appears to host the greatest number of problematic projects. Over 90% (43.6 million) of the problematic credits retired from these 43 projects in 2024 were issued by Verra, suggesting that its updated methodologies and measures taken to assure investors may not rectify the core flaws and failures within its registry.
- Verra is not the only registry promoting and benefiting from problematic offsets. Other registries are as well, including the Gold Standard Impact Registry (3 projects), Climate Action Reserve (1 project), and ACR (1 project). Together they retired over 4.1 million problematic credits from these problematic projects in 2024.
- In addition to the registries, at least 17 verifiers were also involved in approving these problematic projects for VCM trading, signifying that the certification and promotion of problematic offsets within the VCM extends far beyond a few actors. It also suggests that the existing ‘checks and balances’ within the VCM that are meant to ensure high integrity are not proving stringent enough to keep vast volumes of problematic credits from entering the market.
- Forestry and land use projects (23) and renewable energy projects (15) were among the most utilized problematic projects in 2024, but household device projects (4) and chemical processes/industrial manufacturing projects (1) were also problematic.
- While none of the 47 projects assessed had the highest possible rating from BeZero (AAA, or “highest” likelihood of achieving 1 tonne of CO₂e avoidance or removal,) only four had a higher than “moderate” likelihood of achieving 1 tonne of CO₂e avoidance or removal. Yet even these projects are not risk free—as further analysis of BeZero’s detailed project risks assessments revealed the legitimate risk of one or more fundamental failings in at least 2 out of the 4 projects.
- All 37 problematic projects assessed in more detail had a legitimate risk of having at least one fundamental failing present that rendered the projects unlikely to deliver—totaling nearly 40 million credits in 2024. Over half of these projects (19) had a legitimate risk of having two or more fundamental failings, suggesting there may be compounding failures. These include projects like Pacajai REDD+ Project in Brazil (7th largest project globally in 2024), Southern Cardamom REDD+ project in Cambodia, and the Alkumru Hydroelectric Power Plant in Turkey.
- Out of the 37 projects assessed for specific fundamental failings using BeZero project risk assessments, 23 had a legitimate or high risk of being non-additional (4 and 19 respectively); 14 projects had a legitimate or high risk of non-permanence (1 and 13 respectively); 17 projects had a legitimate or high risk of leakage (2 and 15 respectively); and 19 projects had a legitimate or high risk of over-crediting (1 and 18 respectively).
- This research only provides one snapshot of worrying trends of problematic projects, problematic offsets, and fundamental failures that are likely to be even more prevalent across the VCM as a whole. For example, while only 47 of the top 100 offset projects in 2024 had BeZero ratings that meant they were included in this research, at least nine other projects in the top 100 have ratings from other ratings agencies (Sylvera and Renoster) indicating they also likely have problematic or poor performance. This immediately highlights an additional 6.2 million credits retired in 2024 and suggests they may also be problematic.
- In the top 100 projects, 43 projects were not assessed by either BeZero, Renoster, or Sylvera at the time of research, making it unclear how likely the associated 34.7 million credits retired from these projects were to deliver the promised emissions reductions.
This research suggests that despite ongoing reforms, the VCM 2.0 continues to largely fail, enhancing the likelihood of global climate action failure. If there are advances through VCM reforms, they appear to be limited in scope and potential thus far. It poses the critical question of why something that remains so problematic and fundamentally flawed as the VCM 2.0 continues to be counted on to make a meaningful contribution to decreasing global green house gas emissions urgently and permanently. In addition, this research also clearly illustrates the need to reflect on why VCM supporters and investors continue to take on the liability of such great risk, and it necessitates consideration of who is responsible for the repeated failures of the ‘checks and balances’ of the VCM.
