The opinions expressed here by Trellis expert contributors are their own, not those of Trellis.​

When a recent study asked, “Are carbon markets fixable?” it did more than assess the performance of carbon markets. It reflected a deeper debate about how the world should decarbonize versus how it actually does.

While there’s certainly an important discussion to be had around the integrity of decarbonization solutions, it’s equally important to understand that what’s really playing out here is often a question of ideology: Should climate action be pure or should it be pragmatic? Meaning, should we wait for perfect systems before acting or make the best use of imperfect ones to drive impact now?

The “purist” theory of change rests on the premise that all government and corporate emission targets will be fully achieved, making offsets an act of displacement rather than contribution. Therefore, if we simply take credits off the table, these actors will take more aggressive, and costly, action to cut their emissions — in many cases voluntarily. 

The premise might rest on solid moral ground, but it’s a comforting fiction. That’s because such a notion implies that credits necessarily displace action that would otherwise happen. In other words, critics of markets often assume that every tonne promised in a net‑zero plan will be achieved internally, but in a world where targets are often aspirational, under-financed or politically constrained, that logic collapses.

A false premise

The fact is that despite three decades of pledges — and some notable areas of progress — global emissions continue to rise. Many companies set ambitious goals only to postpone or quietly abandon them once the real costs become clear. And more still don’t even do that. 

There is nothing to suggest that carbon credits are to blame for this. In fact, evidence suggests that high‑quality credits don’t displace inevitable abatement — they finance additional action that wouldn’t otherwise occur, particularly in regions that receive little climate investment. Research from Forest Trends shows that companies using carbon credits are also decarbonizing internally at nearly twice the rate of those that don’t, underscoring that credits can complement, rather than replace, internal action. 

The real flaw isn’t in the arithmetic, but in the assumption that ambition equals delivery. Recognizing that gap helps explain why carbon credits exist: not to replace internal reductions, but to fill the space between aspiration and reality with verifiable impact.

Economic and climate mitigation models — the kinds used to simulate net-zero pathways and estimate marginal abatement costs — often assume perfect compliance and unlimited investment. These models can underestimate real-world limitations of political will, financing capacity and the pace at which new technologies can scale.

In reality, decarbonization costs vary dramatically. In developed economies, cutting emissions in major industrial sectors can cost up to $500 per tonne of CO₂ and higher. By comparison, high‑integrity nature‑based credits typically cost $25 to $50 per tonne. Even if these credits deliver only half their claimed reductions, the effective cost would still be $50 to $100 per tonne — a fraction of the cost of deep industrial abatement.

The resources available for decarbonization are finite and in many regions, contracting. Of course, buying credits can’t and shouldn’t replace industrial decarbonization. These mechanisms are designed to complement, not substitute for, deep emissions cuts in core operations. The right question isn’t whether one approach is morally superior, but which delivers the greatest total climate impact per dollar spent. 

In that context, high‑quality credits can direct scarce funds toward the most cost‑effective climate impact while providing benefits that internal abatement cannot — biodiversity conservation, watershed protection, and support for Indigenous and local communities who steward vast carbon‑rich ecosystems. At the end of the day, we need to deploy the full suite of solutions available to us. 

Ideology vs. implementation

Much of the decarbonization debate comes down to ideology. Purists believe that rejecting markets will force faster, deeper internal cuts. Pragmatists argue that we need every credible lever available to reduce emissions today while continuing to reform the system.

The purist defines integrity as abstinence — focus only on the most ambitious levels of action