When companies buy carbon credits to offset their emissions, they might be getting less than they bargained for. A recent analysis found that at least 84 percent of carbon credits did not represent real emissions reductions—forest protection projects can be double-counted or reversed if trees are later harvested, and some renewable energy credits would have happened anyway. It's a troubling gap in the architecture of climate action, and two Swiss researchers say it points to a fundamental problem with how the world tries to account for carbon.
Benedict S. Probst and Florian Egli, working through Swiss academic institutions, have published a proposal in PNAS Nexus arguing that permanent carbon removal technologies—not just avoided emissions—must become central to any credible net-zero strategy. Technologies like biochar, enhanced rock weathering, and direct air carbon capture and storage can lock carbon away for centuries, creating something tangible rather than an accounting illusion. The challenge is that these approaches are often technologically novel and capital-intensive, requiring a new kind of market support to reach scale.
Drawing on lessons from how governments nurtured renewable energy markets, Probst and Egli propose a tiered auction framework. Under their model, governments would set a permanent removal target and minimum quality standards, then run reverse auctions specifying how much carbon needs to be removed and at what price. Companies would bid for contracts—and bear the risk if projects fail. This shifts the incentive structure: instead of vague promises about forests, governments would be purchasing concrete, measurable carbon storage.
The financing would shift over time. For the first decade, governments would cover the costs while the technologies mature. Then, from 2035 to 2045, responsibility would gradually transfer to regulated emitters—polluting industries that would then be required to help fund the removal infrastructure their operations demand.
The authors are candid that only a fundamentally new financing model can bring permanent carbon removal to market. The current system, they argue, has shown its limitations. What's emerging is a vision where governments take early risk, prices fall as scale builds, and accountability lands with those best positioned to drive change. Whether policymakers will embrace it is another question—but the proposal offers a structured path from where we are toward a market that actually delivers what it promises.