在持续的过度信贷中，热带森林的碳抵消带来了部分收益

IF 45.8 1区综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES

Science Pub Date : 2025-10-09 DOI:10.1126/science.adw4094

Yuzhi Tang, Chao Yang, Haishan Wu, Zihao Xu, Linlin Tan, Wei Tu, Bowen Li, Zhaopeng Li, Zhijun Wang, Kai Guo, Siting Xiong, Shoubin Chen, Bo Zhang, Jindong Tian, Yu Hu, Zhipeng Chen, Jonathan M. Chase, Qingquan Li

{"title":"在持续的过度信贷中，热带森林的碳抵消带来了部分收益","authors":"Yuzhi Tang, Chao Yang, Haishan Wu, Zihao Xu, Linlin Tan, Wei Tu, Bowen Li, Zhaopeng Li, Zhijun Wang, Kai Guo, Siting Xiong, Shoubin Chen, Bo Zhang, Jindong Tian, Yu Hu, Zhipeng Chen, Jonathan M. Chase, Qingquan Li","doi":"10.1126/science.adw4094","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div >REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation Plus) projects generate carbon credits to offset emissions, but recent studies have questioned their effectiveness. We evaluated 52 voluntary REDD+ projects across 12 tropical countries using synthetic control methods. Only a minority of project units showed statistically significant reductions in deforestation, and just 19% met their reported emissions targets. Nonetheless, many underperforming projects still delivered partial climate benefits, with an estimated 13.2% of tradable credits supported by counterfactual analysis. Effectiveness varied by region, with stronger performance in Brazil and Africa. Although systematic over-crediting remains a concern, our results suggest greater climate benefits than previous assessments. Improving baseline methodologies and strengthening verification frameworks will be essential for enhancing the credibility and impact of forest carbon offsets.</div>","PeriodicalId":21678,"journal":{"name":"Science","volume":"390 6769","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":45.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tropical forest carbon offsets deliver partial gains amid persistent over-crediting\",\"authors\":\"Yuzhi Tang, Chao Yang, Haishan Wu, Zihao Xu, Linlin Tan, Wei Tu, Bowen Li, Zhaopeng Li, Zhijun Wang, Kai Guo, Siting Xiong, Shoubin Chen, Bo Zhang, Jindong Tian, Yu Hu, Zhipeng Chen, Jonathan M. Chase, Qingquan Li\",\"doi\":\"10.1126/science.adw4094\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div >REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation Plus) projects generate carbon credits to offset emissions, but recent studies have questioned their effectiveness. We evaluated 52 voluntary REDD+ projects across 12 tropical countries using synthetic control methods. Only a minority of project units showed statistically significant reductions in deforestation, and just 19% met their reported emissions targets. Nonetheless, many underperforming projects still delivered partial climate benefits, with an estimated 13.2% of tradable credits supported by counterfactual analysis. Effectiveness varied by region, with stronger performance in Brazil and Africa. Although systematic over-crediting remains a concern, our results suggest greater climate benefits than previous assessments. Improving baseline methodologies and strengthening verification frameworks will be essential for enhancing the credibility and impact of forest carbon offsets.</div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21678,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science\",\"volume\":\"390 6769\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":45.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adw4094\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adw4094","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

REDD+（减少森林砍伐和退化造成的排放+）项目产生碳信用额来抵消排放，但最近的研究对其有效性提出了质疑。我们使用综合控制方法评估了12个热带国家的52个自愿REDD+项目。只有少数项目单位的森林砍伐在统计上有显著减少，只有19%的项目单位达到了报告的排放目标。尽管如此，许多表现不佳的项目仍然提供了部分气候效益，估计有13.2%的可交易信用得到了反事实分析的支持。效果因地区而异，巴西和非洲的效果较好。尽管系统性的过度信贷仍然令人担忧，但我们的结果表明，与以前的评估相比，气候效益更大。改进基线方法和加强核查框架对于提高森林碳抵消的可信度和影响至关重要。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Tropical forest carbon offsets deliver partial gains amid persistent over-crediting

REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation Plus) projects generate carbon credits to offset emissions, but recent studies have questioned their effectiveness. We evaluated 52 voluntary REDD+ projects across 12 tropical countries using synthetic control methods. Only a minority of project units showed statistically significant reductions in deforestation, and just 19% met their reported emissions targets. Nonetheless, many underperforming projects still delivered partial climate benefits, with an estimated 13.2% of tradable credits supported by counterfactual analysis. Effectiveness varied by region, with stronger performance in Brazil and Africa. Although systematic over-crediting remains a concern, our results suggest greater climate benefits than previous assessments. Improving baseline methodologies and strengthening verification frameworks will be essential for enhancing the credibility and impact of forest carbon offsets.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Science 综合性期刊-综合性期刊

CiteScore

61.10

自引率

0.90%

发文量

审稿时长

2.1 months

期刊介绍： Science is a leading outlet for scientific news, commentary, and cutting-edge research. Through its print and online incarnations, Science reaches an estimated worldwide readership of more than one million. Science’s authorship is global too, and its articles consistently rank among the world's most cited research. Science serves as a forum for discussion of important issues related to the advancement of science by publishing material on which a consensus has been reached as well as including the presentation of minority or conflicting points of view. Accordingly, all articles published in Science—including editorials, news and comment, and book reviews—are signed and reflect the individual views of the authors and not official points of view adopted by AAAS or the institutions with which the authors are affiliated. Science seeks to publish those papers that are most influential in their fields or across fields and that will significantly advance scientific understanding. Selected papers should present novel and broadly important data, syntheses, or concepts. They should merit recognition by the wider scientific community and general public provided by publication in Science, beyond that provided by specialty journals. Science welcomes submissions from all fields of science and from any source. The editors are committed to the prompt evaluation and publication of submitted papers while upholding high standards that support reproducibility of published research. Science is published weekly; selected papers are published online ahead of print.