Abstract:As efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions ramp up under net zero emissions commitments and other voluntary and regulated climate efforts, debate is intensifying over what constitute legitimate GHG reduction credits or 'offsets' [1, 2]. Interest and skepticism over offsets are both soaring. Standards that can differentiate credible reductions while harnessing the benefits of market approaches will be pivotal to the success of global climate efforts. To build consensus around high-integrity approaches and resolve misconceptions over the relative merits of fossil versus terrestrial emissions reductions [3, 4], policy makers need to recognize that robustness of net CO2 reductions critically depends on scale of actions and policies.The next Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in November 2021 will again take up the contentious issues of developing rules on international emissions transfers under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, including around the potential transition of approaches from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the carbon offsetting system developed under the Kyoto Protocol. What types of emission reduction credits are acceptable is central to these negotiations. Such criteria are also essential for regulated market systems such as the program to cap emissions for international aviation known as CORSIA, California's cap-and-trade program, and China's national carbon market launched this year; as well as for an increasing number of private companies and individuals pursuing voluntary climate goals.An effective emission reduction crediting system rewards either reductions in the flows of carbon and other GHGs to the atmosphere and/or increases in removals (negative emissions) through enhancement of carbon stocks. Both fossil and terrestrial carbon mitigation can either reduce flows (e.g. from fuel combustion or deforestation) or enhance stocks (e.g. via direct air capture or forest restoration). Rewarding fossil and terrestrial mitigation through carbon credits or other finance may appear different but raise analogous estimation and certification challenges.Various carbon crediting standards are in use across voluntary and compliance carbon markets [5]. These standards seek to ensure climate benefits by addressing issues of monitoring, reporting and verification, 'leakage' (whether emissions reductions in one place cause increases in another), 'additionality' (whether reductions would have happened even without a particular project or program) and 'permanence' (whether a reduction at one point in time is reversed at another). Until recently, these approaches have neglected a central determinant of the environmental integrity of emissions reductions—the scale at which reductions are achieved and quantified.In the first instance, 'scale' refers to whether emissions reductions are managed and results quantified according to the boundaries of a large political jurisdiction with administrative ability to formulate and effect climate policy, rather than at the level of a stand-alone project. 'Jurisdictional' emissions reduction crediting approaches quantify emissions reductions relative to a baseline for an entire economy or economic sector across a political jurisdiction, such as nation, state, or province. Any crediting for smaller-scale activities or projects—e.g. on specific areas of land, industrial facilities, or smaller administrative units—is integrated or 'nested' within the larger jurisdictional accounting. Jurisdictional approaches have emerged for programs to reduce emissions from deforestation, stemming from long-standing concerns with the integrity of reductions from land-based activities [3]. In the second instance, 'scale' refers to how long emission reductions are managed for.Historically most emissions reduction credits have been generated through stand-alone projects, particularly under the CDM. While the CDM excluded efforts to reduce deforestation, the Paris Agreement, adopted by 196 countries in 2015, reaffirmed support for public and private finance for reducing and reversing forest loss at jurisdictional scales, under the framework known as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+). Standards for compliance markets and public sector results-based payments for reducing deforestation have adopted this jurisdictional approach. In November 2020, the governing council of the International Civil Aviation Organization approved two jurisdictional tropical forest protection standards for use within CORSIA—the first time such standards have been adopted under an internationa -Abstract Truncated-

The safe operating space for greenhouse gas emissions

Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity

Applying environmental sustainability boundaries for climate change in life cycle assessment: A review of approaches and implications for policymaking

Climate change critically affects the status of the land-system change planetary boundary

Planetary metrics for the absolute environmental sustainability assessment of chemicals

Planning and building within planetary boundaries. From the singular target of climate neutrality towards a holistic climate and resource-saving building design - a case study.

Quantifying the Limits of HANPP and Carbon Emissions Which Prolong Total Species Well-Being

Allocation of global temperature change to consumers

Limitations of Carbon Footprint as Indicator of Environmental Sustainability

Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet

Exploring the planetary boundary for chemical pollution

The long-term impact of transgressing planetary boundaries on biophysical atmosphere–land interactions

Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change

A Measurable Planetary Boundary for the Biosphere

The role of soil in defining planetary boundaries and the safe operating space for humanity

Creating An Earth Atmospheric Trust

The European Land and Inland Water CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, CO, CH&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt; and N&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;O Balance Between 2001 and 2005

Pathways for Balancing CO2 Emissions and Sinks

Environmental integrity of emissions reductions depends on scale and systemic changes, not sector of origin

Historical CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions from land-use and land-cover change and their uncertainty

Reducing Planetary Health Risks Through Short-Lived Climate Forcer Mitigation