Carbon Credits: Climate Solution or Greenwashing Tool? A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Public Discourse and Market Trends
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66635/29a1fc14Keywords:
carbon credit, carbon market, trading, emission, projects, government, pollution, policy, energy, offset, footprint, net zeroAbstract
This study investigates whether carbon credits are perceived as a credible climate mitigation mechanism or merely a form of corporate greenwashing by examining the gap between institutional narratives and public discourse. Introduced under the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, carbon credits were designed as a market-based instrument to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and support organizations in achieving net-zero targets. Governments, corporations, and international organizations have consistently promoted carbon credits as an effective pathway towards decarbonization and sustainable development. However, recent investigations have raised concerns regarding the environmental integrity and effectiveness of voluntary carbon markets. Reports evaluating projects certified by major registries, particularly Verra, suggest that a substantial proportion of carbon credits failed to deliver the emission reductions claimed. Independent assessments further indicate that only a limited share of certified projects generated measurable and additional climate benefits. This growing discrepancy between institutional claims and empirical evidence has contributed to increasing public skepticism, with carbon credit frequently being criticized as instruments of greenwashing rather than genuine climate solutions. This study adopts mixed-methods research design by integrating qualitative and quantitative analytical techniques. Data were collected from multiple digital platforms, including Quora, Reddit, X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, corporate sustainability reports, and published research articles. Public attention and online engagement were examined using Google Trends data from 2015 to 2024 and Talkwalker social listening analytics. Sentiment analysis was conducted using the Valence Aware Dictionary and Sentiment Reasoner (VADER), which classified public opinions into positive, neutral, and negative categories. A word cloud was developed to identify the dominant themes discussed in relation to carbon credits. In addition, Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA) was employed to examine relationships among issued, retired, and outstanding carbon credits, while market size projections were analysed to evaluate financial trends within the voluntary carbon market. The findings reveal a significant increase in public interest in carbon credit after 2021, primarily driven by COP26 commitments, corporate net-zero pledges, and growing climate policy discussions. Google Trends data indicate a marked increase in search activity during 2023 and 2024, corresponding with regulatory developments and greater emphasis on nature-based carbon removal initiatives. Market analysis further demonstrates that the voluntary carbon market, valued at approximately USD 2.0 billion in 2022, is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 34.6% through 2030. Renewable energy projects constitute the largest market segment, followed by afforestation, reforestation, and energy-efficiency initiatives. Despite this rapid market expansion, sentiment analysis indicates that public discourse remains largely skeptical, with concerns centered on transparency, accountability, and the actual environmental effectiveness of carbon credit projects. The study highlights a substantial trust gap between governments, corporations, and the public, emphasizing the need for stronger governance, rigorous verification standards, and transparent communication to improve the credibility and effectiveness of carbon markets in supporting global climate mitigation objectives.
References
A. Abadie, S. Chowdhury, S. K. Mangla, and S. Malik, “Impact of carbon offset perceptions on greenwashing: Revealing intentions and strategies through an experimental approach,” Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 117, pp. 304–320, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2024.01.001.
[2] TUM, “Carbon Crediting is substantially overestimated,” Press Release, Sep. 4, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.tum.de/en/news-and-events/all-news/press-releases/details/carbon-crediting-is-substantially-overestimated
[3] B. C. Cheong, “The paradox and fallacy of global carbon credits: A theoretical framework for strengthening climate change mitigation strategies,” Anthropocene Science, 2025. doi: 10.1007/s44177-025-00084-0.
[4] H. Chu and S. Yuan, “Carbon credit does not buy moral credit: Moral licensing and perceived hypocrisy of carbon emission offsetting and reduction,” Climatic Change, vol. 178, p. 48, 2025. doi: 10.1007/s10584-025-03897-5.
[5] ClimateSeed, “Carbon credits: origin, mechanism, and their role in climate action,” Jun. 4, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://climateseed.com/blog/understanding-carbon-credits
[6] P. Delacote, T. L’Horty, A. Kontoleon, et al., “Strong transparency required for carbon credit mechanisms,” Nature Sustainability, vol. 7, pp. 706–713, 2024. doi: 10.1038/s41893-024-01310-0.
[7] G. Denton, O. H. Chi, and D. Gursoy, “An examination of the gap between carbon offsetting attitudes and behaviors: Role of knowledge, credibility and trust,” International Journal of Hospitality Management, vol. 90, p. 102608, 2020.
[8] P. Greenfield, “Revealed: More than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by biggest certifier are worthless, analysis shows,” The Guardian, Jan. 30, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe
[9] J. O. Haug and I. Hassinggaard, “Young consumers' attitudes towards voluntary carbon offsetting,” Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 2806–2816, 2023.
[10] J. Köchling, J. E. Koller, J. Straßheim, et al., “The carbon perception gap in actual and ideal carbon footprints across wealth groups,” Nature Communications, vol. 16, p. 6180, 2025. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-61505-7.
[11] E. Merger and T. Pistorius, “Effectiveness and legitimacy of forest carbon standards in the OTC voluntary carbon market,” Carbon Balance and Management, vol. 6, no. 1, 2011. doi: 10.1186/1750-0680-6-4.
[12] R. Pande, “Can the market in voluntary carbon credits help reduce global emissions in line with Paris Agreement targets?” Science, vol. 384, no. 6696, 2024. doi: 10.1126/science.adp5223.
[13] B. S. Probst et al., “Systematic assessment of the achieved emission reductions of carbon crediting projects,” Nature Communications, vol. 15, p. 9562, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.mpg.de/23737687/climate-impact-of-carbon-crediting-projects-substantially-overestimated
[14] G. Trencher, S. Nick, J. Carlson, and M. Johnson, “Demand for low-quality offsets by major companies undermines climate integrity of the voluntary carbon market,” Nature Communications, vol. 15, no. 1, 2024. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-51151-w.
[15] D. Trouwloon, C. Streck, T. Chagas, and G. Martinus, “Understanding the use of carbon credits by companies: A review of the defining elements of corporate climate claims,” Global Challenges, vol. 7, no. 4, p. 2200158, 2023. doi: 10.1002/gch2.202200158.
[16] W. van der Gaast, R. Sikkema, and M. Vohrer, “The contribution of forest carbon credit projects to addressing the climate change challenge,” Climate Policy, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 42–48, 2016. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2016.1242056.
[17] Carbon Markets Cooperation Singapore, “What are carbon credits?” Accessed Sep. 4, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.carbonmarkets-cooperation.gov.sg/our-art6-cooperation/what-are-carbon-credits/
[18] C. Donnison, I. Jewell, J. Watson, T. Stephenson, et al., “A net-zero storyline for success? News media analysis of BECCS,” One Earth, vol. 6, no. 8, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2023.08.010.
[19] R. Ye and Y. Qi, “The impact of carbon news coverage on corporate green transformation,” Scientific Reports, vol. 15, p. 17342, 2025. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-023397.
[20] N. Kreibich and L. Hermwille, “Caught in between: credibility and feasibility of the voluntary carbon market post-2020,” Climate Policy, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 939–957, 2021. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2021.1948384.
[21] L. Schneider and S. La Hoz Theuer, “Environmental integrity of international carbon market mechanisms under the Paris Agreement,” Climate Policy, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 386–400, 2019. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2018.1521332.
