By Abbas Nazil
A new global study has revealed that forests, which absorb nearly a fifth of fossil fuel emissions each year, are critically undervalued by carbon credit systems, weakening conservation incentives and threatening climate goals.
The research, published in the Journal of Environmental Management and led by Dr. Sumanta Das and colleagues, examined two decades of data on forest carbon sequestration, sustainable forest management, and credit valuation.
The results show forests store an estimated 662 gigatons of carbon globally as of 2024, an increase of 32 gigatons since 2004, yet their economic recognition in carbon markets remains far below their real worth.
Forests currently cover about 31% of the world’s land surface and capture around 7.6 gigatons of CO₂ annually, equivalent to nearly 20% of global fossil fuel emissions.
Despite this, carbon credits for forestry projects range from only \$3 to \$15 per ton, compared to the social cost of carbon, estimated between \$51 and \$150 per ton.
This pricing gap means forest carbon services are valued at a fraction of their true climate benefit.
The undervaluation undermines communities and nations working to conserve and manage forests.
While forests are central to global mitigation strategies, credit systems favor engineered carbon capture projects that receive subsidies and innovation funds, leaving natural solutions sidelined.
The study warns this misalignment risks discouraging sustainable forest management and conservation efforts, particularly in regions where deforestation pressures are strongest.
Findings highlight uneven global sequestration trends.
Tropical forests in the Amazon, Congo Basin, and Southeast Asia absorb nearly half of the total carbon stored in global forests but remain most vulnerable to deforestation, degradation, and fire.
Boreal forests store significant carbon in soils and peatlands, offering long-term reservoirs yet facing threats from permafrost thaw.
Temperate forests in Europe and North America show steady sequestration largely due to sustainable management policies, offering models for other regions.
However, financial returns from credit markets remain disproportionately low for the areas contributing the most carbon capture.
Researchers identify three main reasons for market undervaluation.
Concerns about permanence make some policymakers skeptical of forest credits, citing risks from fires or illegal logging.
Complexity in monitoring also reduces trust in forest carbon estimates, as natural systems require extensive satellite and ground data compared to industrial projects.
Finally, policy asymmetry places forests at a disadvantage, with fewer subsidies and more bureaucratic hurdles compared to technological carbon capture systems.
Despite these challenges, advances in remote sensing and artificial intelligence are improving forest carbon monitoring, reducing uncertainty.
The authors argue that aligning credit prices with the social cost of carbon, strengthening community-based management, and embedding forests into national mitigation strategies are urgent steps to unlock forests’ true climate potential.
The study stresses that forests are more than sources of timber—they are essential infrastructures of climate stability and economic resilience.
By undervaluing them, global markets not only weaken conservation incentives but also ignore one of the most scalable and cost-effective tools to fight climate change.
Researchers conclude that the next decade must prioritize fair compensation for forest carbon services and integrate forests as core pillars of climate finance, warning that failure to do so would be a betrayal of both nature and humanity.