The push for carbon credits at COP31 aims to mobilize more private investment, but it requires the implementation of safeguards to prevent funding from fueling greenwashing.
Carbon Credits in the Spotlight
The carbon credits at COP31 have received a renewed political push. Twelve countries back the Antalya Declaration to boost corporate demand and attract private funding toward more climate projects.
The initiative presents a clear opportunity and an indispensable requirement: selling more certificates must translate into demonstrable climate benefits. Confusing business growth with emission reductions would be absurd, especially amid a climate crisis.
The assessment must focus on the tonnes actually avoided or retired, on protecting communities and on corporate decarbonization. Without those guarantees, the market could become a form of greenwashing that prolongs polluting activities.
Carbon Credits at COP31: $21 Billion Under Scrutiny
Canada, France, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Luxembourg, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Zambia are the nations backing the declaration. A guide with eight measures aims to steer public policy to encourage corporate purchases.
According to the analysis cited by the coalition promoting this initiative, favorable policies could multiply the market value by four, reaching up to $21 billion by 2035. This is a projection, not a real funding figure nor an acknowledged amount of emissions reductions.
Governments must explain what results they expect to obtain by stimulating that demand. Portraying the traded volume as an environmental victory without proving its effectiveness would reduce climate policy to institutional propaganda.
The Red Lines Lie in Emission Reductions and Demonstrating Each Benefit
The initiative itself acknowledges that companies must prioritize reducing their carbon footprint. This condition is decisive, because buying carbon credits at COP31 does not eliminate emissions from a fleet, a factory, or an energy facility.
Integrity and ethics require verifying that projects using this method truly deliver greater benefits. It also requires avoiding double counting and recognizing that carbon could be released.
These are red lines against accounting that could slip into complacency. A company that purchases certificates but actually delays investments that would enable it to reduce its emissions cannot claim that both decisions are equivalent or that it should be rewarded in any way.
Financing Projects Without Turning Urgency into a Showcase
The COP31 carbon credits can channel resources toward initiatives in need of funding. But the label «high integrity» must be backed by publicly auditable methods, independent audits, and verifiable results.
Market growth must also be accompanied by social protections. Conservation cannot justify displacing communities or undermining their rights. Contracts, revenue sharing, and grievance mechanisms must enable effective scrutiny.
The coalition announces its expansion to 15 members with the addition of Egypt. This political backing for COP31 carbon credits increases its responsibility: boosting demand without strengthening controls would deepen distrust and leave another set of empty proposals.
Reductions Are Not as Real as They Portray
The sobering finding comes from a review published in Nature Communications in 2024: it estimated that less than 16% of the credits issued by the projects studied corresponded to real reductions.
The result pertains to that sample, not to all current credits. But it obliges us to demand evidence before endorsing COP31 carbon credits: expanding transactions without correcting for overestimation would be a credibility disaster for climate action.
