HomeScience
Evening edition
A paper published in Nature on May 20 concludes that current forest‑carbon offset protocols understate the risk that wildfire, drought and insect outbreaks will reverse stored carbon, meaning many buffer pools are far too small to cover likely future losses and undermining the durability of major carbon‑credit programmes.
A paper published in Nature on May 20 concludes that current forest‑carbon offset protocols understate the risk that wildfire, drought and insect outbreaks will reverse stored carbon, leaving many buffer pools too small to cover likely future losses and thereby undermining the stated durability of major carbon‑credit programmes (see university summaries at Clark University and UC Santa Barbara: https://www.clarku.edu/news/2026/05/20/clark-environmental-scientist-contributes-to-study-that-raises-questions-about-climate-solutions/, https://news.ucsb.edu/2026/022582/carbon-markets-underestimate-risks-us-forests-face-climate-change).
The authors’ findings add to mounting evidence that climate‑driven extremes will alter the risk landscape for nature‑based climate solutions. At the same time, research out of the Arctic shows those extremes are already intensifying: a Nature Communications study published earlier this month finds record‑breaking Greenland ice‑sheet melt events have become more intense and are projected to occur more frequently under warming scenarios, increasing risks of accelerated sea‑level rise and related downstream impacts (Nature Communications: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69543-5).
The Nature paper’s assessment has implications for both carbon markets and forest management. It comes alongside other recent research showing that proactive treatments — prescribed burns and mechanical thinning — have prevented millions of tonnes of CO2 emissions, reduced thousands of premature deaths from wildfire smoke and averted billions of dollars in damages in the western United States, underscoring the role of active management in reducing climate and public‑health harms (Inside Climate News: ).
Taken together, these studies point to a twofold challenge for policymakers and market designers: first, to reassess how permanence and reversal risk are measured and insured within carbon‑credit programmes; and second, to integrate landscape‑scale management strategies that can reduce the probability of carbon loss while delivering co‑benefits for public health and infrastructure.
Outside of forests and the cryosphere, geopolitical and supply‑chain considerations for the clean‑energy transition are also in flux. On May 20 Reuters reported that the European Union has shortlisted tungsten, rare earths and gallium — with magnesium, germanium and graphite also under discussion — for a pilot joint stockpile intended to reduce reliance on Chinese suppliers. EU officials are holding talks with major ports, including Rotterdam, about storage options (reported by Reuters and republished by AOL; also covered by Mining Weekly: https://www.aol.com/articles/eu-shortlists-tungsten-rare-earths-083430000.html, https://www.miningweekly.com/article/eu-shortlists-tungsten-rare-earths-for-first-stockpile-to-curb-china-reliance-2026-05-20).
As scientists document the growing frequency and intensity of climate extremes and managers demonstrate interventions that can reduce risk, regulators and market actors face pressure to update the rules that govern nature‑based credits and to align incentives for durable carbon storage. The convergence of physical climate risk, emerging mitigation practices and strategic mineral policy highlights how interconnected scientific, economic and geopolitical dimensions of the energy transition have become.