Greenpeace Philippines called out the Department of Energy (DOE) for rushing its new carbon-credit framework, emphasizing that carbon offsetting is a false solution that won’t do much to stop emissions. The group called on the government to instead focus on policies and regulations that advance actual emissions reductions and make companies pay for climate pollution.
“DOE is railroading carbon markets purportedly to reduce emissions—but at the same time, they’re playing godfather to fossil gas projects, and putting more exemptions to the coal plant moratorium. This clearly doesn’t add up,” said Greenpeace campaigner Jeffferson Chua, in response to the energy department’s recent rollout of guidelines for carbon credits. “Instead, what it shows is that the DOE is bowing down to pressure from high-emitting industries who want to turn pollution into profit, rather than actually reduce their emissions.”
“Carbon markets have been in existence for more than two decades, and in that period, global emissions have skyrocketed,” said Chua, “Now, the DOE is wants to use this failed model, a heavily market-driven approach, without any safeguards: no public registry, no open data, no protection against pass-through costs, and no guarantee that communities will benefit.”
Greenpeace warned that without a real roadmap to cut emissions, the DOE’s rules could give polluters a free pass. “In the absence of clear targets or standards to move away from fossil fuels, the DOE’s rules risk legitimizing unregulated voluntary carbon markets. Fossil fuel companies would gain the most, earning more profits in the guise of ‘low-carbon’ responsibility,” Chua added.
The recently published DOE Department Circular DC2025-09-0018 logs a “general framework” for carbon trading aligned with Article 6 pathway–ITMOs, future domestic compliance markets, and voluntary offsets. But Greenpeace said this approach mirrors flawed systems abroad such as in China, and New Zealand (specifically for forestry credits). Greenpeace says that even the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) took over two decades to work, and despite its current strong enforcement, is still far from perfect.
“Carbon markets are what they are: markets,” Chua said. “This means that by design, the bottom line is how companies can gain the most profit and ensure the least regulation. Without strong oversight, this framework just enables companies’ greenwashing and profiteering, while their emissions stay the same or even rise.”
“To the DOE, we say: Why the rush?” said Chua. “Before jumping into carbon markets, the government must first lay down a just energy transition roadmap first, to pull the country’s energy grid away from oil, gas, and coal. If carbon finance is used at all, it must deliver real emission cuts and lead to decarbonization, instead of being yet another loophole for rich polluters to satiate their greed.”
____________________
[1] Philippine Information Agency: DOE Issues General Framework for Carbon Credits in the Energy Sector
[2] DOE Department Circular 2025-09-0018: Providing General Guidelines for the Generation, Management, and Monitoring of Carbon Credits in the Energy Sector
0 Comments