For decades, scientists, regulators, and entrepreneurs have worked to build a functioning market for project-based carbon credits. Given the complexity of this task—especially in challenging regions—flaws are inevitable. Methodologies have evolved over time, as has the science behind them. Imperfection is not the exception; it’s the nature of a growing and adaptive system.

Yet despite this, the loudest criticism leveled against carbon credits has been a supposed “lack of integrity.” In response, many in the market have rushed to issue public apologies and pledged unwavering commitment to integrity going forward.

But let’s pause. Is it really plausible that for nearly thirty years, the majority of market actors operated with low integrity—and only now, after intense external criticism, are they experiencing a collective moral awakening? That seems unlikely.

What’s more plausible is this: critics fundamentally opposed to market-based climate solutions have seized on the integrity argument as a strategic weapon—aimed not at improvement, but at undermining the system altogether. Their goal is not better credits, but no credits.

Of course, integrity must be the cornerstone of any credible carbon market. But here’s the paradox: the more loudly and apologetically market participants declare their integrity, the more exposed they become to scrutiny. Every flaw becomes a “gotcha” moment. “You promised integrity, and I found another imperfection!”

A sustainable path forward requires acknowledging that complexity does not equal dishonesty. It requires defending the role of market mechanisms in solving the climate crisis—without retreating in the face of weaponised critique.