The latest report on carbon offset standards by the Stockholm Environment Institute and WWF, which compared seven different schemes, does not specifically recommend any of them. Perhaps one of the authors, WWF, does not want to jump to explicit conclusions because its own Gold Standard label is involved.

My main question is: which labels deserve to be the favourites of the market? Which one provides the best quality and assurance that real emission reductions and other co-benefits are taking place?

Considering the ‘additionality’ issue as absolute basic in evaluating the different quality of standards, there is no doubt the Gold Standard stands as the preferred scheme. The Gold Standard concerns Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy only and is indeed recommended by many carbon market experts to their buying clients. If projects don't qualify for the Gold Standard, other options like the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) and the Verified Emission Reduction (VER) are taken into consideration.

Struggling with so many and different carbon offsets standards could turn people away from this new market. Perhaps it would be better, as US Ecosystem Marketplace Director Ricardo Bayon told The Economist last year, that just a few survive. If that were to happen, expert predictions point to the Gold Standard as the one to stay. The Voluntary Carbon Standard backed by important supporters like the International Emission Trading Association, and CCBS for forest projects are other candidate survivors.

Carbon offset buyers and sellers would very much like to see a mature industry that provides the best and simplest standard options, tailored to the type of project and to the client's goals. Meanwhile, let’s not forget that carbon offset should be about quality emission reduction for the best price.

Christian Hudtwalcker

Editor GreenPrices News Desk