Carbon offsets and the greenwashing dilemma introduction – An Article by H.E. Dr. Abdulla Belhaif Al Nuaimi

As 2025 draws to a close, Scientific Reports has published a landmark study that shakes the foundations of global climate policy and challenges our understanding of photosynthesis. Led by researchers from the UK’s National Centre for Earth Observation at the Universities of Leicester, Sheffield, and Edinburgh, the study reveals that Africa’s forests — long regarded as vital carbon sinks — have become net sources of emissions. Between 2010 and 2017, these ecosystems released more carbon dioxide than they absorbed, amounting to nearly 200 million tonnes annually. In my previous article, I talked about this dangerous turning point in the global climate crisis, with profound implications for biodiversity, atmospheric stability, and international climate goals.

This alarming shift underscores the fragility of the planet’s natural defences against climate change and raises urgent questions about the credibility of carbon offset mechanisms, particularly those promoted by oil and energy companies and even some environmental institutions. If forests no longer absorb carbon as assumed, can corporations justify balancing their emissions by purchasing or protecting them — or is this simply another form of greenwashing?

The science behind the shift

Forests act as carbon sinks by absorbing carbon dioxide through photosynthesis and storing it in biomass and soil. Historically, Africa’s tropical forests—especially the Congo Basin—played a pivotal role in stabilizing the global climate. The new study, however, shows this balance has been disrupted.

Key drivers include:

• Deforestation: Logging and land conversion for agriculture reduce forest cover.
• Fires: Whether natural or man-made, they release stored carbon at alarming rates.
• Mining and shifting agriculture: These practices destroy ecosystems and hinder regrowth.
• Soil degradation: Loss of vegetation accelerates organic matter breakdown and carbon release.
• Knowledge gaps: Limited research on how rare elements affect photosynthetic efficiency.

The result is an annual loss of nearly 106 billion kilograms of biomass, turning forests into troubling sources of emissions rather than protective barriers.

Global emissions context

For perspective, fossil fuel emissions reached 37.4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2024. Africa’s forest emissions account for about 0.5% of this total. While seemingly small, the symbolic impact is immense: forests were supposed to be part of the solution, yet they are now part of the problem.

The logic of offsets

Global oil companies often justify continued reliance on fossil fuels by purchasing forest- based carbon offsets under the “net zero” framework. This logic rests on three pillars:

1. Carbon absorption: Forests balance emissions by absorbing CO2.
2. Global balance: Since climate change is a global issue, absorption can occur anywhere.
3. Funding protection: Investments are presented as support for biodiversity and local development.

The latest findings, however, expose the fragility of this logic and the weakness of governance.

When the logic fails
The study highlights several flaws:

• Forests have become emission sources, undermining their credibility as offsets. • Stored carbon is vulnerable to release through fires or deforestation.
• Justice concerns arise as commodifying forests threatens sovereignty and marginalizes local communities.
• Offsets risk becoming greenwashing tools, allowing companies to project an eco-friendly image without real emission cuts.
• Industrial nations continue to neglect financial commitments promised to poorer countries under the Paris Agreement.

Greenwashing and corporate responsibility

Greenwashing is the projection of an environmentally positive image without substantive change. Forest-based carbon offsets epitomize this when used as substitutes for genuine reductions.

By purchasing credits from African forests, companies claim progress toward “net zero” while expanding fossil fuel production. This creates the illusion of climate action without reducing atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

COP30 context

The 30th UN Climate Conference (COP30), held in Brazil in 2025, emphasized forest protection as a global priority. Yet it also spotlighted carbon markets, with nations and corporations pledging billions to buy forest credits.

Here lies the contradiction: science shows Africa’s forests are net emitters, yet policy continues to promote them as offsets. This disconnect between science and politics— between knowledge and economics—risks turning climate pledges into mere public relations exercises.

The ethical dimension

Beyond science and policy, carbon offsets raise profound ethical questions. Africa’s forests are home to millions who depend on them for livelihoods and cultural identity. Many offset deals involve foreign companies acquiring rights to vast tracts of land—sometimes up to a fifth of a nation’s territory.

Critics call this a new form of environmental colonialism: wealthy nations and corporations commodify African ecosystems to balance their pollution, while local communities bear the consequences. The latest study strengthens this critique, showing that these forests no longer even perform the climate role they were meant to.

Towards genuine climate action

If promised offsets are unreliable, what is the alternative? The solution lies in moving from accounting tricks to real reductions. Key steps include:

• Cutting fossil fuel use: Companies must prioritize reductions, beginning with methane as highlighted at COP28.
• Investing in renewables: Solar, wind, and hydrogen must take center stage.
• Protecting forests for their intrinsic value: Safeguarding biodiversity and communities, not corporate balance sheets.
• Tightening offset rules: Ensuring they are additional, verifiable, and permanent.

Conclusion

The revelation that Africa’s forests are net carbon sources is a global wake-up call. It exposes the fragility of relying on ecosystems as corporate offsets and highlights the dangers of greenwashing, with its environmental and human costs. Oil companies and their affiliates cannot justify balancing emissions through forests that are deteriorating and releasing carbon.

Protecting Africa’s forests remains essential—for biodiversity, communities, and climate stability. But this protection must not become a license to expand fossil fuels. True climate responsibility demands emission cuts at the source and forest protection for its inherent worth.

As COP30 concludes, the challenge is clear: we must replace the illusion of balance with the reality of transformation, moving beyond the “net zero” narrative first popularized at COP26. Only then can forests—and humanity—be genuine allies in confronting climate change. Only then can environmental agreements deliver a moral and ecological equilibrium capable of meeting the planet’s greatest challenge.