Today’s paradox focuses on a question that has haunted carbon markets since their inception: We all want “scientifically proven” results. The problem is, science evolves.

Science isn’t about absolutes. It’s about a preponderance of the evidence and concurrence of experts, especially when you have social sciences layered on top of physical sciences, as is the case with forest-carbon methodologies. So, what happens if the “cutting-edge” science behind a project turns out to be less than perfect?

A decade ago, precise satellite data was rare—now, it’s routine, and that data is multiplying like tribbles on the deck of the Starship Enterprise, leading to ever-better models. 

We’re always chasing perfection, but that creates a paradox: holding out for flawless, scientifically “correct” methods could freeze progress altogether, as fear of future criticism keeps projects from launching.

How to deal with the Science Paradox?