Biodiversity credits shouldn’t copy the carbon market playbook (commentary)
Here is the argument I want to make plainly, before anything else: the biodiversity credit market should stop trying to copy carbon’s trick of reducing everything to one tradable unit, and should instead measure its own success by how continuously and independently a claim can be verified. Chasing a single elegant number, the way carbon […]
The argument being made in this commentary is that the biodiversity credit market should not attempt to replicate the carbon market's approach of reducing everything to a single tradable unit, such as metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e). Instead, the market should focus on measuring its success through continuous and independent verification of claims.
The reasoning behind this stance is that chasing a single elegant number, like tCO2e, may not be the best goal for the biodiversity credit market. In fact, it could be the wrong direction entirely.
To support this perspective, the author points to the inconsistent market size estimates for the global biodiversity credit market. Every few months, different market research reports provide varying figures for the market's size in 2025. For example, one report estimates the market at around $90 million, while another suggests a figure of $7.1 billion.
Another report places the market closer to $5.7 billion. These discrepancies are not minor rounding errors; they represent a range of nearly 80 times the estimated market size. The variation in these estimates is not attributed to a data problem that can be resolved with better satellite technology. Rather, it highlights a fundamental truth about biodiversity that the carbon market never encountered.
Written by urgent.news from Mongabay's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
