Talk:Carbon credit

message: I propose renaming this article to carbon allowance.
The existing name carbon credit seems ambiguous because some sources say a carbon credit is a carbon offset and some say it is a carbon allowance. 
As I understand it 
voluntary carbon credit = carbon offset
compliance carbon credit = carbon allowance
Whereas everyone seems to agree what a carbon allowance is. See for example https://www.4air.aero/whitepapers/allowances-vs-offsets Chidgk1 (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure. Would the existing articles on carbon credit and carbon offset both be merged into "carbon allowance"? At this stage, the terms "carbon credit" and "carbon offset" seem to be the more familiar names (but they often seem to get mixed up in practice). We just have to make sure we follow WP:Commonname. - I have no fixed views on this and would be happy to learn by reading/following a discussion that might take place here. - Then there is also carbon budget which sounds similar to "carbon allowance" but it's a global level thing whereas carbon allowance would be at a smaller level, not global. EMsmile (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t propose to merge just move stuff to the correct article after the rename Chidgk1 (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to [[carbon allowance]]? 

message: As part of the project “Improving communication of climate change knowledge through Wikipedia”, I would like to propose that this article and the carbon offset article be combined into one article, perhaps titled “Carbon offsets and credits”. Am posting this proposal to both this page and the carbon offset talk page. 
===Justification for Proposal===
I’m suggesting this because:
*As shown in the comparison outlines below, these two terms are often used interchangeably in these articles, and leads to confusion. This seems to be more common in the offset article, but it’s an issue with the credit article as well. A combined article that provides an overall definition of both terms, describes the common features (and differences) for them, and makes distinctions where they are appropriate, would provide a better overall coverage of this field.
*The two topics have several features in common, such as: project type; key principles such as additionality; markets and regulatory drivers (there are distinctions here as well, of course); and criticisms (again also some distinctions too). However, the two articles provide different approaches in describing these common features. These need to be presented in a more consistent manner, ideally in one location.  
*Both articles need updating, as many of the references in more than 10 years old. Although some are still relevant, there is a lot of information developed over the past 10 years that should be incorporated into these articles, such as the developments around crediting and offset mechanisms under the Paris agreement, the role of net zero goals, as well as a variety of recent criticisms of both crediting schemes and voluntary offset projects. 
*These articles have a host of other issues that could be addressed at the same time – there are currently four maintenance templates in each article.
*Below are outlines from the TOC for each article, I’ve tried to briefly summarize some key points about the contents and list, in italics, where each article is talking about credits, offsets, or both credits and offsets. There are also some italicized notes about issues such as maintenance templates.
Carbon credit	Carbon offset
Carbon Credit TOC
Key Points in Lead
3rd paragraph – drive to lower emission processes (credits and offsets), and discussion of trading partners (more relevant to credits). 4th paragraph- carbon offsets in voluntary markets & credits in Kyoto CDM and EU-ETS (covers both offsets and credits).
1-Definitions – three different definitions given (all are relevant to both credits and offsets, and in fact the term “offset” is used as part of the second definition).
2-Types – VERs and CERS (distinction between credits and offsets here is muddled, VER description uses both offset and credit in same sentence)
3-Background 3.1-Emission allowances (credits), 3.2-Kyoto's 'Flexible mechanisms' (credits) – 3.3-Emission markets (mostly credits discussed here, but markets cover both credits and offsets) -3.4-Setting a market price for carbon – (ideas cover both credits and offsets).
4-How buying carbon credits propose to reduce emissions – (unclear if it relates to credits of offsets - Maintenance template for lack of citations, and much of this seems off topic – I would propose to eliminate most of this section).
5-Creating carbon credits – intro discusses both credit and offset programs; 5.1-Additionality and its importance (applies to both credits and offsets – there is also a template for no citations); 5.2-Criticisms (generally covers credit type issues – maintenance template for out of date information).
6-Fraud allegation – (Although it appears credit related, not sure how this text contributes to the article – suggest deleting it or moving under the criticism section).
7-See also – (mixture of credit related and offset related links).	Carbon Offset TOC
Key Points in Lead 
1st paragraph - definition – compensating for emissions elsewhere (could be offsets or credits, though citation is referring to offsets); one ton of CO2e (both credits/offsets); neutralizing discrepancies on price of carbon (unclear if offset or credit); 3rd and 4th paragraphs - types of projects and need for due diligence to identify “good quality” offsets (applies to both credits/offsets). 
1-Features -gases covered, vintage, project type, co-benefits (generally applies to both credits and offsets), certification regime (covers both credit and offset mechanisms). 
2-Markets – (Text describes both carbon credit markets (Global, UK) and voluntary (offset) markets). 
3-Types of offset projects – (types of projects described in sections 3.1 to 3.6 are common for both carbon offsets and carbon credits). 3.7–Links with emission trading schemes (relates more to carbon credits). 3.8-  Carbon retirement (covers similar issue for credits and offsets, though there are some differences). 3.9-Small-scale schemes, and 3.10-Other (don’t seem particularly relevant, and could probably be deleted). 
4-Accounting for and verifying reductions –(the issues and concepts described here apply to both offsets and credits, though there are some minor regulatory aspects that are specific to credits). 
5-Quality assurance schemes – (this section appears outdated, and most of the citations do not appear to go to active links. Suggest it be deleted).  
6Controversies – (Nearly all of the issues described in this section, which has a template on it for potential NPOV issues, apply to both offsets and credits. This section as a whole needs to be rewritten to address the maintenance template). 
7-See also – (most of these links are applicable for both offsets and credits).
===Description of Proposal===
*I would propose to create a combined outline for both articles, and use the following definitions from Carbon Offset Guide as an inro concept. This description is also consistent with definitions from this Corporate Finance Institute webpage. From the offset guide: “A carbon offset broadly refers to a reduction in GHG emissions. . . that is used to compensate for emissions that occur elsewhere. A carbon offset credit is a transferrable instrument certified by governments or independent certification bodies to represent an emission reduction of one metric tonne of CO2, or an equivalent amount of other GHGs.” This is consistent with wording in the lead of carbon offset article, and roughly consistent with wording in the lead of the carbon credit article.
*The combined article outline would then cover the main features, such as principles, project types, markets/drivers, and criticisms. Where there are differences between offsets and credits in one of these sections, that would be explained in the appropriate section. Similar to a recent proposal for revising the  Carbon accounting article.
*Prior to developing an outline, I wanted to see if there were strong concerns with combining the articles, or whether any of the information I have presented here seems off-base. Please let me know if you have questions or concerns about any of this. , , and  - pinging each of you, as it looks like you have been recent contributors to this page.
Dtetta (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I worry that the discussion might be spread over two pages so my suggestion is that the discussion about this proposal should take place on the talk page of carbon offset only (which is where I have just put my response). EMsmile (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks  - I agree - now that the proposal has been presented on both pages, it makes more sense to have the discussion on one page. Just added a "Discussion" subsection to the post on the carbon offset talk page, so hopefully editors will post their comments there. Dtetta (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I’ve nearly finished an outline for a combined article tentatively title “Carbon Offsets and credits” (still need to flesh out the “Recent Trends” section). It’s located at: User:Dtetta/Carbon offsets and credits. I posted some additional notes on the talk page of the “Carbon offsets” article, and suggest that the discussion of the combined article proposal continue to take place there. Dtetta (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've put my two cents worth here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carbon_offset#Proposed_outline_for_combined_article EMsmile (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Thanks Philotrio. I scoured the AR6 Mitigation and Synthesis reports for mentions of these terms, and the reports are largely silent on this topic. There are a few brief mentions of carbon pricing in general, but not much. I did spend a good bit of time reviewing the literature for definitions for these topics, and also worked with Michael Gillenwater(Greenhouse Gas Management Institute) and Derik Broekhoff (Stockholm Environmental Institute), both internationally recognized for their expertise in this area, to get feedback about what should be covered in these articles. The text on definitions in the offset article is  based in part on their recommendations. I have also described a list of all of their comments on the offset talk page. Hope that helps. Dtetta (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the time has come to place the redirect tag at this article then. You've done all the necessary groundwork, Dtetta.  EMsmile (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Since both definitions are accepted (and may have had different origins) and similar meaning and usage, this may be mentioned and yes, it would be alright for both articles to remain on wiki and to include adequate cross references. Philotrio (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Housekeeping: Just to say that the merger has been completed now. EMsmile (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to Merge this Article and Carbon Offset Article 

message: *I would propose to create a combined outline for both articles, and use the following definitions from Carbon Offset Guide as an inro concept. This description is also consistent with definitions from this Corporate Finance Institute webpage. From the offset guide: “A carbon offset broadly refers to a reduction in GHG emissions. . . that is used to compensate for emissions that occur elsewhere. A carbon offset credit is a transferrable instrument certified by governments or independent certification bodies to represent an emission reduction of one metric tonne of CO2, or an equivalent amount of other GHGs.” This is consistent with wording in the lead of carbon offset article, and roughly consistent with wording in the lead of the carbon credit article.
*The combined article outline would then cover the main features, such as principles, project types, markets/drivers, and criticisms. Where there are differences between offsets and credits in one of these sections, that would be explained in the appropriate section. Similar to a recent proposal for revising the  Carbon accounting article.
*Prior to developing an outline, I wanted to see if there were strong concerns with combining the articles, or whether any of the information I have presented here seems off-base. Please let me know if you have questions or concerns about any of this. , , and  - pinging each of you, as it looks like you have been recent contributors to this page.
Dtetta (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I worry that the discussion might be spread over two pages so my suggestion is that the discussion about this proposal should take place on the talk page of carbon offset only (which is where I have just put my response). EMsmile (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks  - I agree - now that the proposal has been presented on both pages, it makes more sense to have the discussion on one page. Just added a "Discussion" subsection to the post on the carbon offset talk page, so hopefully editors will post their comments there. Dtetta (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I’ve nearly finished an outline for a combined article tentatively title “Carbon Offsets and credits” (still need to flesh out the “Recent Trends” section). It’s located at: User:Dtetta/Carbon offsets and credits. I posted some additional notes on the talk page of the “Carbon offsets” article, and suggest that the discussion of the combined article proposal continue to take place there. Dtetta (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've put my two cents worth here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carbon_offset#Proposed_outline_for_combined_article EMsmile (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Description of Proposal

message: I have revised the offset article, and moved the portions of this article that seemed appropriate over to the offset article. Ready to close the discussion and determine consensus per section 2.4 of Wikipedia:Merging. Would be interested in feedback on whether there is any material in this article that does not appear in the offset article, but should. So far it appears that  and  support the merger proposal, as do I. Dtetta (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Philotrio. I scoured the AR6 Mitigation and Synthesis reports for mentions of these terms, and the reports are largely silent on this topic. There are a few brief mentions of carbon pricing in general, but not much. I did spend a good bit of time reviewing the literature for definitions for these topics, and also worked with Michael Gillenwater(Greenhouse Gas Management Institute) and Derik Broekhoff (Stockholm Environmental Institute), both internationally recognized for their expertise in this area, to get feedback about what should be covered in these articles. The text on definitions in the offset article is  based in part on their recommendations. I have also described a list of all of their comments on the offset talk page. Hope that helps. Dtetta (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the time has come to place the redirect tag at this article then. You've done all the necessary groundwork, Dtetta.  EMsmile (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Since both definitions are accepted (and may have had different origins) and similar meaning and usage, this may be mentioned and yes, it would be alright for both articles to remain on wiki and to include adequate cross references. Philotrio (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Housekeeping: Just to say that the merger has been completed now. EMsmile (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Ready to merge articles