Here is the argument I want to make plainly, before anything else: the biodiversity credit market should stop trying to copy carbon’s trick of reducing everything to one tradable unit, and should instead measure its own success by how continuously and independently a claim can be verified. Chasing a single elegant number, the way carbon markets did with metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e), is not what this field should be racing toward. It may, in fact, be the wrong goal altogether. The clearest evidence for this sits in plain view, in numbers that most people read as an embarrassment rather than as information. Every few months, a new market research report tells us exactly how large the global biodiversity credit market is. The trouble is, no two reports agree. One puts the 2025 market at roughly $90 million. Another, published around the same time, puts it at $7.1 billion. A third lands somewhere near $5.7 billion. These are not small rounding-off differences. They are the same year, the same broad market, and estimates that differ by a factor of nearly 80. Mangroves and coral reef in Papua New Guinea. Image by Matt Curnock / Ocean Image Bank. Most commentary treats this gap as a sign that the data are still catching up with a young market, but I read it differently. The disagreement is not a data problem waiting for better satellites to fix. It is telling us something true about biodiversity that the carbon market never had…This article was originally published on Mongabay

From Conservation news via This RSS Feed.