The Paradox and Fallacy of Global Carbon Credits: A Theoretical Framework for Strengthening Climate Change Mitigation Strategies

Abstract Carbon credit systems have emerged as a key policy tool in global efforts to mitigate climate change. Under these market-based schemes, entities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions below a specified cap are issued tradable credits that can be sold to entities exceeding their emissions allowances. In theory, this creates financial incentives for emissions reductions and allows reductions to occur where they are most cost-effective. However, this Policy Analysis argues that the increasing reliance on global carbon markets as a climate solution is deeply problematic and paradoxical. Drawing on interdisciplinary perspectives from environmental economics, law, ethics, and political ecology, I explore the problem through a theoretical framework elucidating the inherent limitations and fallacies underpinning carbon credit approaches. I contend that carbon markets (1) fail to produce real, verifiable emissions reductions; (2) exacerbate global inequities and undermine climate justice; (3) distort climate policy by emphasising cost-effectiveness over ecological necessity; and (4) delay the structural economic changes needed to achieve deep decarbonisation. My analysis is supported by a narrative review of the literature, case studies, and empirical evidence. This Policy Analysis concludes by proposing alternative climate mitigation approaches that could help transcend the paradoxes of global carbon credits, including accelerating fossil fuel phaseouts, scaling up public investment in low-carbon infrastructure, advancing climate justice principles, and rethinking carbon accounting frameworks. Article Highlights Carbon credit systems have emerged as a key policy tool for mitigating climate change, but their effectiveness and equity are increasingly being questioned. This Policy Analysis explores the problem through a theoretical framework that elucidates four major paradoxes and limitations of carbon markets. The analysis draws on interdisciplinary perspectives and is supported by a narrative review of the literature, case studies, and empirical evidence. The Policy Analysis proposes alternative climate mitigation approaches that could help transcend the paradoxes of global carbon credits. Developing effective and equitable climate change mitigation policies in the coming decades will require moving beyond the limitations of carbon markets. Graphical Abstract

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Anthropocene Science
Published
2025-06-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s44177-025-00084-0
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Climate Change Policy and Economics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.13
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Paradox and Fallacy of Global Carbon Credits: A Theoretical Framework for Strengthening Climate Change Mitigation Strategies

Ben Chester Cheong
1 citations
Anthropocene Science
Climate Change Policy and Economics
3.13
article

The Paradox and Fallacy of Global Carbon Credits: A Theoretical Framework for Strengthening Climate Change Mitigation Strategies

Ben Chester Cheong
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract Carbon credit systems have emerged as a key policy tool in global efforts to mitigate climate change. Under these market-based schemes, entities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions below a specified cap are issued tradable credits that can be sold to entities exceeding their emissions allowances. In theory, this creates financial incentives for emissions reductions and allows reductions to occur where they are most cost-effective. However, this Policy Analysis argues that the increasing reliance on global carbon markets as a climate solution is deeply problematic and paradoxical. Drawing on interdisciplinary perspectives from environmental economics, law, ethics, and political ecology, I explore the problem through a theoretical framework elucidating the inherent limitations and fallacies underpinning carbon credit approaches. I contend that carbon markets (1) fail to produce real, verifiable emissions reductions; (2) exacerbate global inequities and undermine climate justice; (3) distort climate policy by emphasising cost-effectiveness over ecological necessity; and (4) delay the structural economic changes needed to achieve deep decarbonisation. My analysis is supported by a narrative review of the literature, case studies, and empirical evidence. This Policy Analysis concludes by proposing alternative climate mitigation approaches that could help transcend the paradoxes of global carbon credits, including accelerating fossil fuel phaseouts, scaling up public investment in low-carbon infrastructure, advancing climate justice principles, and rethinking carbon accounting frameworks. Article Highlights Carbon credit systems have emerged as a key policy tool for mitigating climate change, but their effectiveness and equity are increasingly being questioned. This Policy Analysis explores the problem through a theoretical framework that elucidates four major paradoxes and limitations of carbon markets. The analysis draws on interdisciplinary perspectives and is supported by a narrative review of the literature, case studies, and empirical evidence. The Policy Analysis proposes alternative climate mitigation approaches that could help transcend the paradoxes of global carbon credits. Developing effective and equitable climate change mitigation policies in the coming decades will require moving beyond the limitations of carbon markets. Graphical Abstract

Anthropocene ScienceVol. 4(1-2)
Centre for Natural Resource Governance (ZW), University of Reading (GB), Singapore University of Social Sciences (SG)
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Climate Change Policy and Economics
3.13
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.