Resignations Rise Due to Forest Carbon Accounting Rule Disagreements about Threats to Scientific Integrity

     Carbon offsetting is way up due to AI data center developers, ie., tech companies, seeking to offset their growing carbon emissions. Debates about accounting for forest carbon storage are pitting scientists against the forest products industry that wants less stringency on their credits.

     Tim Searchinger, the Princeton University scholar serving as the World Resources Institute‘s technical director for land-related issues, recently resigned his position in protest. University of Pennsylvania senior fellow Danny Cullenward stepped down from the Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s Independent Standards Board in June over the same dispute. Searchinger told Bloomberg that he resigned:

“…because developments with the Protocol undermined that integrity in both the content of the rules and the process behind them, and because he was unable to correct them.”

     According to Wood Central, the debate is about how much to attribute to human activity vs. natural activity.

“The Greenhouse Gas Protocol, a standard-setter overseen in part by the World Resources Institute, is drafting its first guidance on forest carbon accounting, and the fight centres on two competing approaches to attributing the carbon forests absorb, store, and release. Activity-based accounting separates changes caused by people from those driven by natural processes, while the rival managed land proxy treats every change on managed forest land as human-caused.”

     Opponents say there is double counting when natural carbon removal is counted and credited as human-caused removal.

“Bloomberg found most scientists and non-governmental organisations either backed activity-based accounting or criticised the proxy, with a smaller band of scientists writing in favour alongside industry professionals.”

     The issue is whether or not this is greenwashing, or more accurately, how much greenwashing will be accepted.

     Microsoft is one of the biggest buyers of carbon offsets and one of the biggest buyers of forest carbon offsets.

“Microsoft, one of the world’s biggest buyers of wood-linked carbon removal, has already agreed to buy more than 4.8 million tonnes of credits from improved forest management across American forestland in five states. Surging AI emissions are testing the tech giant’s pledge to become carbon negative by 2030.”

     An article about this in The Cool Down states that the problem is simply greenwashing, whether a company can claim sustainability branding without really adding much real carbon storage benefit. They explain the debate between activity-based accounting and managed land proxy as follows:

“Activity-based accounting tries to sort out which carbon changes come from human actions and which stem from natural processes. Managed land proxy, by contrast, counts every carbon change on managed forest land as human-caused.”

     Choosing the managed land proxy method means that corporate disclosures will be distorted and less scientifically accurate.  

     The Greenhouse Gas Protocol standards board has yet to make a decision and will accept comments through February 2027, before making a decision. At present, either accounting method may be used as long as the method used is disclosed.

     There is also the possibility of using a hybrid model, the “managed land proxy plus” model, which is safeguarded against being exploited irresponsibly. However, several scientists believe that it is not enough and there will still be inaccuracies in the real amount of carbon stored by the corporate interests, akin to greenwashing.

“Vaughan Andrews, Weyerhaeuser's senior program manager for sustainability, helped develop a revised version he called "managed land proxy plus" that includes safeguards so it is "applied responsibly." It's a "solution that can be implemented at scale," Melissa Gallant, The Nature Conservancy's senior climate adviser, told Bloomberg.”

“Others are not persuaded. Jennifer Skene, global forest policy director at the Natural Resources Defence Council, argued that a tool designed for national climate inventories was never intended for corporate accounting.”

"You don't want any actor who has a climate goal to be reporting removals from the atmosphere without acknowledging or somehow taking into account the fact that some of those forest-based removals really have nothing to do with their corporate action," Nathan Truitt, an American Forest Foundation executive vice president, said. "That is absolutely not what will happen if we adopt [managed land proxy plus]."

    

References:

 

Princeton expert resigns over forest carbon rules, citing threat to 'scientific integrity'. Leslie Sattler. The Cool Down, August 22, 2026. Princeton expert resigns over forest carbon rules, citing threat to 'scientific integrity'

Top Scientist Quits as Forest Carbon Rules Face Greenwashing Claims. Wood Central. August 17, 2026. Forest Carbon Accounting Fight Sees Top Scientist Quit WRI | Wood Central