# kaal:claim:4685567-012

**Claim.** Kaal concedes that at their worst Impact 1.0 carbon credits are non transparent, fraudulent and fail to mitigate climate change, but contests the inference drawn from that record: operational shortcomings do not necessarily invalidate the underlying theory.

**Type.** failure  **Support.** argued

**Holds when.**

- distinguishes operational execution from underlying theory

**Source quote.**

> at their worst, carbon credits in Impact 1.0 are non-transparent, fraudulent and fail to mitigate climate change. Nonetheless, operational shortcomings do not necessarily invalidate the underlying theory

**From.** Wulf A. Kaal, *Impact Investing Innovation - From Impact 1.0 to 3.0* (2024), Social Impact Credits, page 19

**Cite as.** Wulf A. Kaal, Impact Investing Innovation - From Impact 1.0 to 3.0 (2024). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4685567

**Verify.** sha256 of source PDF `87fb1be89d2661967ed2b0b673fe26448ded3bc3119b122177a4fc13ae5c085c` at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wulfkaal/Academic-Papers/main/papers/pdf/Kaal%20-%202024%20-%20Impact%20Investing%20Innovation%20-%20From%20Impact%201.0%20to%203.0.pdf

**Failure mode.** Carbon Credit Execution Failure  (family: fraud-and-misconduct)

**Topics.** disclosure

**Keywords.** carbon-credits, fraud, transparency, theory-versus-execution

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of the claim. Its sha256 is the content hash used for attestation.