Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, the global standard used by corporations and governments to measure and manage carbon emissions, have drawn significant criticism for potentially misrepresenting the climate impact of forestry and wood product industries. The proposed changes would allow companies to claim emission reductions from activities such as harvesting trees for paper, burning wood for energy, or producing wood goods—practices that some experts warn could encourage increased deforestation rather than reduce it.
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol, developed and overseen by groups including the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, is widely used by major corporations and jurisdictions like Australia and California to calculate carbon footprints and regulate emissions. Its land-use guidelines are currently under revision to modernize how forestry emissions are accounted for. However, the process has sparked controversy because it has been heavily influenced by forestry and wood products companies including Weyerhaeuser and IKEA, raising concerns about corporate interests shaping climate standards.
A pilot study of 19 forestry-related companies demonstrated that under the proposed rules, 18 reported their existing operations as either climate-neutral or climate-positive. Critics highlight that this result clashes with scientific evidence, since deforestation still accounts for about 10 percent of global emissions, and the world is projected to lose forest area equivalent to the size of Argentina by 2050. Proposed rules would credit companies for carbon sequestration from forest growth regardless of whether their activities actually contribute to that growth, effectively allowing emission offsets based on external factors such as climate change accelerating tree growth.
This approach, opponents argue, could produce counterintuitive outcomes. For instance, logging companies might neutralize emissions by acquiring additional forest land without changing harvest rates; food producers could claim carbon-negative status if their products are associated with nearby forests despite their role in deforestation; and burning wood for electricity could be classified as carbon-negative even though many scientists consider it more harmful to the climate than coal. Furthermore, recycled paper might appear worse for the climate than virgin paper, as the latter involves harvesting additional trees that would count toward carbon credits.
Concerns over the integrity of the rulemaking process have led several independent experts to resign in protest. Danny Cullenward, a University of Pennsylvania researcher, stepped down from a protocol board citing the sidelining of scientific input. More notably, Tim Searchinger, a key technical director at WRI and a leading authority on climate accounting, left his position after years of unsuccessfully urging that science guide the revisions. Searchinger has warned that setting flawed accounting rules risks incentivizing harmful practices broadly and undermining genuine climate action.
As global climate challenges intensify amid rising emissions and environmental degradation, critics argue that undermining the accuracy of carbon accounting standards could delay needed progress. They emphasize that the protocol’s revisions must reflect rigorous science to avoid misleading companies and consumers about the true climate impacts of forestry-related activities. With corporate climate commitments reportedly waning in some sectors, the design of such frameworks remains a pivotal factor in shaping future global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.