Sign inRegister

Discover PlayDecide. Download games, prepare, play. GET STARTED

Environmental Credits: Is Nature for Sale?

Choose your language

PlayDecide games may be available in multiple languages

Play the game

Download, prepare, discuss & collect results.

SIGN INRegister

Today, the global economy is under strong pressure to fight climate change. More than 90% of the world’s economy now promises to reach “Net Zero” emissions. This means companies try to balance the carbon they produce with actions that remove carbon from the atmosphere.

Author / translator Erasmus Courses Croatia

Today, the global economy is under strong pressure to fight climate change. More than 90% of the world’s economy now promises to reach “Net Zero” emissions. This means companies try to balance the carbon they produce with actions that remove carbon from the atmosphere. To do this, many companies started to invest in natural ecosystems. These projects protect nature and also store carbon. This idea is called Financialized Conservation, where nature becomes something that can be measured and traded in markets.

For example:
Blue Credits support the protection of ocean ecosystems such as mangroves, seagrasses, and salt marshes. These ecosystems store large amounts of carbon in underwater mud.
Green Credits support land projects like planting forests, restoring natural landscapes, or regenerative farming. These projects help store carbon in plants and soil.
Biodiversity Credits focus on protecting animals, plants, and habitats. The goal is to help companies become “Nature Positive.”

This system has started a big debate. Supporters say giving nature economic value can attract large investments to protect ecosystems. Critics say environmental credits may allow companies to continue polluting while paying to protect nature somewhere else. This raises important questions: Can financial markets really protect nature? Does putting a price on nature help conservation? Or does it turn nature into a product that can be bought and sold? Who really benefits from these systems?

Aims of the game

The aim of this game is to help players explore different opinions about environmental credits and the idea of putting a price on nature. During the discussion, players listen to different perspectives, examine facts, and think about the social, environmental, and economic impacts of these systems. By sharing ideas and debating the issue, players should try to better understand the complexity of protecting nature in a changing global economy. At the end of the game, players will vote on one policy option that they believe is the best way to manage environmental credits and protect ecosystems in the future. The goal is not necessarily to agree, but to learn from different viewpoints and make an informed decision together.

Created 13 March 2026
Last edited 13 March 2026
Topics Economy, Environment, Sustainability

Policy positions

Policy position 1

The Accelerator:

We should quickly expand environmental credit markets. Large investors only invest when they can earn money. If we create clear rules for credits, we can attract billions of dollars for projects like restoring marine habitats, planting forests, and protecting wildlife. Some projects may fail, but if most succeed, the total benefit for nature could still be very large.

Policy position 2

The Guardrails:

Credits should only exist with strict rules and government control. Companies must first reduce their own pollution before buying credits. Also, an independent global scientific organization should check every project. This would confirm how much carbon is actually stored. This way the system protects the planet, not just company profits.

Policy position 3

Community Voice:

Only projects led by local or Indigenous communities should sell environmental credits. Sometimes companies take land from local people to create conservation projects. This is called “green grabbing.” To avoid this, local communities must own or manage the projects, and most of the money should stay in the community. If communities do not give free and informed consent, the project should not be allowed.

Policy position 4

The De-Financializer:

Nature should not be treated like a market product. Carbon offsets allow companies to continue polluting. Instead, governments should introduce a global carbon tax and a nature tax on industries like shipping, mining, and industrial farming. This money would go into a global public fund that supports the most urgent environmental projects.

Story cards

“My family has fished in this lagoon for four generations. Now a company says the area is a Blue Carbon Zone, and we cannot enter. They offered me a job to guard the forest, but I am a fisherman, not a security guard. How can I feed my family now?”

Elias - The Traditional Fisherman

“I have studied this coral reef for 15 years, and it is slowly dying. A technology company offered $2 million in biodiversity credits to help restore it. I know they use this project to offset their pollution, but if I refuse the money, the reef may disappear. Is it better to save the reef with dirty money, or let it die?”

Dr. Aris - The Marine Biologist

“Our company reduced emissions by 60%, but we still use ships that won’t be electric for decades. We buy environmental credits because we want to take responsibility for the emissions we cannot remove yet. If we didn’t buy these credits, the money would just go to shareholders. Isn’t it better to use it for nature restoration?”

Sara – The Sustainability Officer

“I used to grow corn with chemicals because that’s what the market wanted. Now a carbon credit program pays me to protect the soil and plant cover crops. My land is healthier and full of wildlife again. But what happens if carbon trade prices fall? Will I need to return to damaging farming?”

Robert – The Regenerative Farmer

“My laboratory studies environmental DNA to prove biodiversity improvement. Our data can show if a project is real or fake. But the technology is very expensive. Only large corporate projects can afford it. Sometimes I feel like this system pushes out small local conservation groups.”

Dr. Elena – The Scientist

“Our community has protected this land for generations. Now a company wants us to sign a 50-year contract to create a biodiversity zone. They offer money for a new community center, but we lose the right to manage our own land. Is the money worth losing our connection to the land?”

Lukas – The Local Resident

“People criticize us, but nature currently has no value in the global market. That is why it is destroyed so easily. If we turn wildlife, forests, and wetlands into financial assets, investors will finally want to protect them. If you want to save nature, sometimes you must make it profitable.”

Julian – The Investor

“These credits are like modern indulgences. Rich people fly private jets to climate conferences and then buy credits to feel better. This allows them to keep their luxury lifestyles while the planet continues to burn. We don’t need credits. We need less extraction and less pollution.”

Fatima – The Climate Activist

INFO CARDSISSUE CARDS

The Monoculture Trap

A company plants 1 million eucalyptus trees to create carbon credits. The trees store carbon quickly, but the forest has almost no birds or insects. Should carbon credits be allowed if they reduce local biodiversity?

The Permanence Problem

A forest used for carbon credits burns in a large wildfire caused by climate change. The stored carbon goes back into the atmosphere. Who should be responsible for this loss: the company that bought the credits? The landowner? Or the public?

Food vs. Fuel

Some farmland is being turned into carbon forests because credits are more profitable than growing food. If too much farmland becomes carbon forests, will food prices rise, especially for poor people?

Land Grabbing

Large companies buy huge areas of land in poorer countries for carbon farming. This increases land prices and makes it difficult for local farmers to buy land. Is this a new form of economic colonialism?

The Unpopular Species

Investors often prefer to fund famous animals, like pandas or sea turtles. But many important species in ecosystems are insects, fungi, and bacteria. If the market decides which species to protect, could we lose the most important ones?

The Irreplaceability Question

A mining company destroys a 500-year-old forest but buys biodiversity credits to create a new wetland twice the size. Can nature be replaced like pieces in a Lego set, or are some ecosystems too unique to replace?

The AI Wilderness

To prove biodiversity improvement, forests may be monitored with satellites, microphones, and DNA tests. Does turning wild nature into a high-tech data zone destroy the idea of wilderness?

The Double-Counting Problem

A mangrove forest stores carbon, protects fish, and protects the coast from storms. If a company sells three different credits for the same forest, is that smart financing or a financial trick?

The Legacy Offset

An oil company polluted for 50 years, but now buys many nature credits and becomes “Net Zero.” Does this really erase the past, or should companies first pay for historical damage?

The Technology Gap

The most trusted credits require expensive technology to verify them. This means large corporate projects receive funding, while small local conservation projects may be ignored. Is technology pushing small communities out of the market?

The Tipping Point Risk

Some ecosystems like the Amazon rainforest or Great Barrier Reef may already be close to collapse. If these ecosystems collapse anyway, the credits could become worthless. Is it safe to connect global finance to ecosystems that might fail?

The “Paper Park” Problem

A company pays to protect a reef, but there is no money for rangers or patrol boats. Is this real conservation, or just a protected area on a map?

A Whale as an Asset

Scientists say one whale may be worth $2 million in carbon storage. Does giving whales a financial value help protect them, or does it turn them into just another financial asset?

Coastal Exclusion

To protect a mangrove forest, a project bans local fishers from entering the area. Is it fair to harm the food security of a local village so that a rich company can reach "Net Zero"?

Blue Carbon

Mangroves, seagrasses, and salt marshes can store up to 10 times more carbon per hectare than tropical forests on land. Most of this carbon is stored in underwater mud, where it can stay for thousands of years.

The Funding Gap

To reach the UN goal “Life Below Water”, the world needs about $175 billion more every year. Currently, ocean protection receives the least funding of all global sustainability goals.

Additionality

For a credit to be valid, it must show that the project would not happen without the credit money. If the area was already protected by law, selling credits for it is double counting and does not help the planet.

Leakage

Sometimes protecting one area causes destruction somewhere else. For example, if a mangrove forest is protected from shrimp farming, the farmer might simply move the farm to another location. In this case, the total environmental benefit is zero.

Trawling and Carbon Release

Bottom trawling is a fishing method that drags heavy nets across the seafloor. This disturbs the seabed and releases about 1 gigaton of carbon every year, similar to emissions from the global aviation industry.

Buffer Pool

Marine ecosystems can be damaged by storms, heatwaves, or disease. Because of this risk, some credits are kept in a “buffer pool.” These credits are not sold and work like insurance if carbon is released again.

Monitoring and Verification (MRV)

Measuring carbon underwater is 5–10 times more expensive than measuring it on land. Scientists must use divers, satellites, DNA analysis, and soil samples. Because of this, much of the money goes to technology and research instead of local communities.

Soil Carbon

The top meter of soil on Earth stores about 2,500 billion tons of carbon, more than the atmosphere and all plants combined. Some farming programs pay farmers to stop plowing the soil, which helps keep carbon stored underground.

Peatlands

Peatlands cover only 3% of Earth’s land, but they store twice as much carbon as all forests combined. If peatlands are drained for farming, they release huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.

Reforestation vs. Afforestation

Planting forests where they never existed can sometimes harm local ecosystems. Better projects focus on reforestation, which means restoring the original natural forest.

eDNA Technology

Scientists can now find out which species live in an area by analyzing environmental DNA (eDNA) from water or soil. This helps measure whether biodiversity is increasing or decreasing.

Biodiversity Is Unique

Carbon is the same everywhere, but biodiversity is unique to each place. You can't compensate for the loss of a wildflower meadow in Germany by saving a rainforest in Gabon.

Habitat Connections

Wildlife needs connected habitats to survive. Some credit systems reward projects that create corridors between protected areas, helping animals move and maintain healthy populations.

Corporate Supply Chains

For many companies, more than 90% of environmental damage happens in their supply chains, not in their offices. New credit systems try to make companies responsible for their entire global impact.

Ecosystem services

Ecosystems provide “ecosystem services” worth trillions of dollars each year - clean water, pollination, flood protection, and climate regulation. Environmental credit systems attempt to translate these invisible benefits into measurable value. By assigning economic value to these services, supporters believe governments and corporations will finally treat nature as essential infrastructure rather than a free resource.

Local Communities and Biodiversity

About 80% of global biodiversity is located in areas managed by Indigenous peoples and local communities. Some credit projects create new income for these communities, but others may restrict traditional ways of life.

License to Pollute

Critics say some companies use credits to avoid reducing their own emissions. This can create greenwashing, where companies appear environmentally friendly without making real changes.

Discover PlayDecide. Download games, prepare, play. GET STARTED

Register to download vote results of this PlayDecide game.Register