Carbon Credits: False Promise or Tool in Progress?
By Samuel Herrera, Carbon Free Aviation Journalist, 6 Nov 2025
In the global climate debate, carbon credits have become a battlefield between faith in market solutions and environmental skepticism.
While some countries seek to refine their trading mechanisms to accelerate decarbonization, others fear a repeat of the old patterns of inequality and greenwashing under a new “green” label.
The tension became evident in October 2025, when the Philippine Department of Energy (DOE) announced the creation of a national carbon credit system, prompting immediate backlash from climate justice advocates.
The group People’s Rising for Climate Justice denounced the policy as “illegitimate and anti-people,” claiming that it “allows polluters to greenwash business as usual while Filipinos continue to suffer from environmental destruction.”
The organization warned that the regulation “centralizes power in energy bureaucrats indebted to corporate interests” and opens the door to projects of questionable sustainability, such as mega-dams, waste incinerators, or nuclear plants.
The DOE, for its part, argues that its circular is aligned with the Paris Agreement and seeks to integrate with the carbon trading systems of Japan, Singapore, and the European Union, showing that the carbon market is not merely a financial mechanism but also a diplomatic tool for international cooperation.
Over 17,000 kilometers away, Brazil has taken the opposite path. Far from rejecting the concept, the government is betting on turning the country into the epicenter of the global carbon market.
Finance Minister Fernando Haddad confirmed that Brazil is negotiating with the European Union and China to create an alliance that links existing markets under a common framework.
The initiative aims to harmonize standards, increase transparency, and bring liquidity to carbon trading, with the ultimate goal of “accelerating global decarbonization.”
Still, Brazil sees a strategic opportunity: if it succeeds in building a bridge between the Global North and South, it could redefine carbon governance and position itself as an emerging climate power.
These two cases reveal the central dilemma of the carbon market: is it a real tool to finance the transition, or merely a safety valve that delays structural change?
Critics argue that nature-based projects — whether reforestation or conservation — are difficult to verify and often fail to offset emissions as promised.
By contrast, science-based projects, such as direct air capture or bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), offer greater traceability, though at far higher costs.
Reducing this complex debate to “nature is a fraud, and technology is the solution,” however, would be a dangerous oversimplification.
As with any new industry, there is a learning curve and an inevitable margin of error. The fact that some projects fail does not mean the concept is doomed; it means it is still being built.
The carbon market — for all its flaws — remains one of the few global tools that turns pollution into an economic signal. And like any young market, it requires transparency, regulation, and time to mature.
Perhaps the real challenge is not to decide between rejecting or embracing carbon credits, but to recognize that we are facing an imperfect instrument which, if used wisely, could help finance the next era of global decarbonization.