U.S. Forest Offsets Need 6x Bigger Buffers as Wildfire Carbon-Loss Risk Climbs to 33%
Updated
Updated · BIOENGINEER.ORG · May 20
U.S. Forest Offsets Need 6x Bigger Buffers as Wildfire Carbon-Loss Risk Climbs to 33%
7 articles · Updated · BIOENGINEER.ORG · May 20
A new University of Utah and UC Santa Barbara study says U.S. forest carbon losses are being materially underestimated, leaving carbon-credit buffer pools too small to cover expected reversals over coming decades.
Using forest inventories, remote sensing and machine learning, the researchers mapped century-scale risks from wildfire, drought and insects and found California’s offset program would need roughly six times more buffer credits.
Wildfire drove the sharpest deterioration: land exposed to wildfire-related carbon reversal is projected to rise to 33% from 10%, with parts of Idaho, Southern California, Arizona and New Mexico facing more than 80% risk.
Drought and insect risks also increase—though more modestly—to 21% from 19% and 25% from 23%, reinforcing that static offset protocols no longer match climate-driven disturbance patterns.
The findings raise broader doubts about treating forest carbon as equivalent to fossil emissions and support shifting projects toward lower-risk regions with climate-informed, adaptive safeguards.
With wildfire risk tripling, are billions invested in corporate carbon offsets simply going up in smoke?
If today's forest carbon credits won't survive climate change, what does a truly durable nature investment look like?
Underestimated Reversal Risks Threaten Integrity of U.S. Forest Carbon Markets, Study Finds
Overview
A major new study published in Nature has revealed that U.S. forest carbon markets face a critical problem: the risk that stored carbon will be released back into the atmosphere—through events like wildfires or disease—is much higher than previously estimated. Current safeguards, such as buffer pools meant to protect against these losses, are not enough to cover the expected reversals. This means the climate benefits promised by forest carbon offsets may be significantly overstated, putting the credibility and environmental integrity of these markets at risk if current practices continue.