Few words have sparked more permanent debate in the carbon markets. The question is simple yet fundamental: Will this ton of carbon stay out of the atmosphere forever, or is there a risk of reversal? Who could deny the importance of that question?

For many, “permanence” has become the single most important criterion for assessing the quality of carbon credits. But that dominance creates two problems.

First, it pits nature-based solutions against engineered removals. Carbon stored in trees or soils can never match the permanence of storage in geological formations or mineralized forms. Nature changes—storms, pests, and fires are part of its cycle—and no one can guarantee that a tree will stand forever. When “permanence” becomes the sole measure of quality, nature-based approaches are placed at a disadvantage. Yet their proponents will not simply back down. Instead, they highlight—often passionately—their many co-benefits: biodiversity protection, community livelihoods, and landscape resilience, areas where engineered removals tend to fall short. The result is a polarized and often heated debate.

Second, the most “permanent” ton of carbon abatement is the one that never reaches the atmosphere at all. From that perspective, technologies that avoid emissions—such as methane leak detection, energy efficiency improvements, or forest conservation—offer greater permanence than any removal approach. By elevating permanence above all other criteria, the removals community risks undermining its own position.

In the end, permanence remains an essential element of the integrity of carbon credits. Yet, paradoxically, the permanence debate itself may permanently slow the growth of the entire market.