Many commentators have celebrated the link between carbonmarkets in California and Québec as an example of effective coordination of sub-national climate policy instruments. Here, Iargue that this enthusiasm is misplaced. California recentlyamended its carbon market regulations to enable significantleakage of emissions to neighboring states. These reforms reducethe environmental effectiveness of the market, contradict clearstatutory guidelines, and dilute the integrity of the state’s compliance instruments. Moreover, the reforms took place in an administrative process that never recognized the leakage implications, raising questions as to whether California alerted itsCanadian counterparts of the consequences of its internal reforms.I review this transition from three perspectives: the relevantadministrative proceedings in California, the mutual obligationsboth governments accepted under a bilateral agreement,and the standards California law imposes on prospective linkedmarkets. Each perspective reveals major shortcomings. Ratherthan demonstrating a successful model for harmonizing carbonmarket systems across different legal jurisdictions, the link between California and Québec exemplifies a major institutionalweakness: in a linked carbon market, participating governmentsmust continuously monitor the administrative processes of eachjurisdiction in order to maintain market integrity. But as theCalifornia experience demonstrates, administrative law may notbe up to the task of ensuring that practical market operation follows the rule of law.

Carbon offsets are widely used by individuals, corporations, and governments to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions on the assumption that offsets reflect equivalent climate benefits achieved elsewhere. These climate-equivalence claims depend on offsets providing real and additional climate benefits beyond what would have happened, counterfactually, without the offsets project. Here, we evaluate the design of California's prominent forest carbon offsets program and demonstrate that its climate-equivalence claims fall far short on the basis of directly observable evidence. By design, California's program awards large volumes of offset credits to forest projects with carbon stocks that exceed regional averages. This paradigm allows for adverse selection, which could occur if project developers preferentially select forests that are ecologically distinct from unrepresentative regional averages. By digitizing and analyzing comprehensive offset project records alongside detailed forest inventory data, we provide direct evidence that comparing projects against coarse regional carbon averages has led to systematic over-crediting of 30.0 million tCO₂ e (90% CI: 20.5-38.6 million tCO₂ e) or 29.4% of the credits we analyzed (90% CI: 20.1%-37.8%). These excess credits are worth an estimated $410 million (90% CI: $280-$528 million) at recent market prices. Rather than improve forest management to store additional carbon, California's forest offsets program creates incentives to generate offset credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Nature-based climate solutions are a vital component of many climate mitigation strategies, including California's, which aims to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. Most carbon offsets in California's cap-and-trade program come from improved forest management (IFM) projects. Since 2012, various landowners have set up IFM projects following the California Air Resources Board's IFM protocol. As many of these projects approach their 10th year, we now have the opportunity to assess their effectiveness, identify best practices, and suggest improvements toward future protocol revisions. In this study, we used remote sensing-based datasets to evaluate the carbon trends and harvest histories of 37 IFM projects in California. Despite some current limitations and biases, these datasets can be used to quantify carbon accumulation and harvest rates in offset project lands relative to nearby similar "control" lands before and after the projects began. Five lines of evidence suggest that the carbon accumulated in offset projects to date has generally not been additional to what might have otherwise occurred: (1) most forests in northwestern California have been accumulating carbon since at least the mid-1980s and continue to accumulate carbon, whether enrolled in offset projects or not; (2) harvest rates were high in large timber company project lands before IFM initiation, suggesting they are earning carbon credits for forests in recovery; (3) projects are often located on lands with higher densities of low-timber-value species; (4) carbon accumulation rates have not yet increased on lands that enroll as offset projects, relative to their pre-enrollment levels; and (5) harvest rates have not decreased on most project lands since offset project initiation. These patterns suggest that the current protocol should be improved to robustly measure and reward additionality. In general, our framework of geospatial analyses offers an important and independent means to evaluate the effectiveness of the carbon offsets program, especially as these data products continue improving and as offsets receive attention as a climate mitigation strategy.

Forests are currently a substantial carbon sink globally. Many climate change mitigation strategies leverage forest preservation and expansion, but rely on forests storing carbon for decades to centuries. Yet climate-driven disturbances pose critical risks to the long-term stability of forest carbon. We quantify the climate drivers that influence wildfire and climate stress-driven tree mortality, including a separate insect-driven tree mortality, for the contiguous United States for current (1984-2018) and project these future disturbance risks over the 21st century. We find that current risks are widespread and projected to increase across different emissions scenarios by a factor of >4 for fire and >1.3 for climate-stress mortality. These forest disturbance risks highlight pervasive climate-sensitive disturbance impacts on US forests and raise questions about the risk management approach taken by forest carbon offset policies. Our results provide US-wide risk maps of key climate-sensitive disturbances for improving carbon cycle modeling, conservation and climate policy.