Climate impact & projects

Climate impact describes what a project achieves over time in terms of CO₂ reduction or removal. It is not a snapshot, but a process that develops over years. A tree only has impact once it grows. An efficient cookstove only has impact as long as it is used.

Impact therefore does not appear in seconds, but over time. And it can never be measured perfectly. Even the best methods rely on approximations because nature and human behaviour cannot be predicted precisely.
Climate impact simply means understanding how a project reduces or removes CO₂ – without expecting every value to be calculated exactly.

Climate projects can avoid, reduce or remove emissions – depending on their type and approach. But they cannot make an entire footprint “disappear.” Their impact is a contribution, not a complete offset of a company’s activities.

False expectations often arise when projects are viewed as a substitute for internal reductions. That leads to disappointment on all sides.
Realistically, climate projects deliver a clearly defined contribution to climate impact – no more and no less. They complement actions within the company; they do not replace them.

Compensation means a company offsets emissions it has caused – for example through CO₂ reduction or removal elsewhere.
Contribution means the company supports a project without counting this support as an offset for its own emissions.

The market is currently moving in this direction. Many standards now clearly distinguish between offsetting and contributing. For companies, this simply means deciding which statement they want to make and which approach fits their strategy.

Both models have their place: compensation for accounting purposes, contribution for supporting climate impact without promising a full offset.

Climate projects follow a simple idea: compare what would happen without the project (baseline) to what happens with the project. That baseline is the starting point. Regular monitoring then checks whether activities take place as planned and what CO₂ impact develops.

Standards such as VCS or Gold Standard ensure these steps are transparent. They define methods, measurement points and independent verification.
The structure may sound technical, but at its core it is straightforward: a clear method, consistent monitoring and verification that confirms the project delivers what it promises.

Climate projects always involve uncertainties. Nature, behaviour, technology – all of these change over time. That’s why there is no exact CO₂ number and no error-free project.

What matters is not perfection but transparency: What was planned? What actually happened? How does the project handle deviations?
A good project is open about its work and its limits. The fact that it cannot provide absolute precision is not a flaw – it is the normal reality of climate impact.

There are different ways to reduce or avoid CO₂. Some projects work with nature, such as reforestation, wetland restoration or ecosystem protection. Others rely on technology: renewable energy, efficient cookstoves or energy savings in everyday use. 

Each type follows its own logic. Forests store CO₂ over many years. Efficiency projects prevent emissions from occurring in the first place. Energy projects replace fossil sources.
The differences become clear when viewed in everyday terms – and they help set realistic expectations for a project’s impact.

Climate projects can be one element of a company’s strategy, but they are not the foundation. Internal reduction remains the first step. Projects help address emissions that cannot currently be avoided. 

It is useful to connect them to your own goals: Which emissions remain? How does the company want to take responsibility? Which type of project fits the approach?
In this way, climate projects become part of a clear, traceable strategy – not an escape route.

Regional projects create closeness. You can visit them, understand them and explain them more easily to your team. Even if their physical climate impact does not “stay in the region,” the connection feels more direct. That’s legitimate – proximity is a value, not a technical criterion.

Both types have their place: international projects with high CO₂ impact and regional projects that strengthen local engagement.
Companies are not choosing between right and wrong, but between two perspectives: global impact and local relevance.

A certificate, or carbon credit, is not an award but documentation. It shows that a project has reduced or removed a specific amount of CO₂ – according to the relevant methodology and based on verified data.

This does not mean every number is exact to the last decimal. It means the project has demonstrably achieved the defined impact.
Certificates therefore document verified climate impact for a given period – not the perfection of a calculation.

Viele Projekte bringen neben der CO₂-Wirkung weitere Effekte mit sich. Effizientere Kochsysteme verbessern Gesundheit. Aufforstung unterstützt Artenvielfalt. Erneuerbare Energien schaffen Versorgungssicherheit.

Diese zusätzlichen Wirkungen sind nicht „Bonus“, sondern Teil des Projektumfelds. Sie entstehen, weil Projekte Menschen, Energie oder Ökosysteme betreffen – nicht, weil sie dafür entwickelt wurden.
Co-Benefits zeigen, dass Klimaprojekte mehr als CO₂ bewegen, ohne sie größer darzustellen, als sie sind.