A new commentary argues that biodiversity credits should not copy the carbon market's approach of reducing everything to one tradable unit like tCO2e. Instead, the author says, success should be measured by how continuously and independently a claim can be verified. The piece points out that market size estimates for biodiversity credits vary by a factor of 80, which suggests a fundamental disagreement about what should count as a credit, not just a data gap. The commentary draws on carbon market scandals, including the Verra offset controversy and the criminal charges against Ken Newcombe, to show how a single unit can create perverse incentives. The author suggests biodiversity credits are young enough to design verification-first systems from the start, rather than converging on one elegant number that could be gamed. For anyone tracking carbon markets or environmental finance, this is a useful perspective on why biodiversity credits might need a different market design.
