A carbon removal credit is an accounting or registry unit representing a quantified carbon-removal outcome. The carbon dioxide has to come from the atmosphere and be stored, but the phrase “carbon removal credit” does not by itself tell you whether that removal has already happened.
That is the first thing I would establish before comparing projects or prices.
A company can finance a tonne expected to be removed several years from now, buy a removal that has already been measured and independently verified, or buy an issued credit available for immediate retirement. All three transactions can involve carbon removal, but they carry different evidence, delivery risk and claims.
C Level has dealt with this for years through reforestation. At CommuniTree in Nicaragua, early carbon finance supports seed collection, nurseries, farmer support, planting and the years of work required to establish forest. When we visited in 2023, we saw those stages operating within the same programme. Early finance is valuable precisely because the mature forest does not yet exist. I would therefore be very comfortable saying that a company had financed future removal where that is what it had done. I would not describe the same purchase as an already delivered ex-post removal.
The wider carbon dioxide removal market now has the same issue at much greater scale. Businesses are signing future contracts for direct air capture, biochar, BECCS, enhanced weathering and reforestation at the same time as issued removal credits are becoming available for immediate purchase.
So before asking which removal technology is best, I would ask four simpler questions: what removed the CO2, has the removal happened yet, how long will the carbon remain stored, and what evidence exists for this exact unit?
What is a carbon removal credit?
Carbon dioxide removal, usually shortened to CDR, means taking CO2 that is already in the atmosphere and storing it in a reservoir such as trees, soil, biochar, minerals or geological formations.
That atmospheric starting point separates removal from conventional carbon capture at a fossil-fuel plant. Capturing fossil CO2 before it enters the atmosphere can reduce emissions, but it is not CDR because the carbon has not first been removed from the atmosphere.
The 2026 State of Carbon Dioxide Removal estimates that the world currently removes around 2.2 billion tonnes of CO2 a year, almost all through conventional land-based methods. Novel CDR methods such as biochar, enhanced weathering and direct air capture remain tiny by comparison. View the report.
A carbon removal credit is the accounting instrument built around that physical outcome. Depending on the programme and crediting model, it can represent an achieved removal or a quantified commitment to future removal.
For a buyer, those two ideas should never be allowed to blur.
Physical carbon removal vs a carbon removal credit
Physical carbon removal describes what has happened to the CO2.
A carbon removal credit or certificate describes the unit created to account for the relevant carbon outcome.
That means a project, an achieved tonne and an issued credit are not automatically the same thing.
A reforestation programme may be physically removing carbon every day as trees grow, while the relevant monitoring period has not yet been verified or issued. Conversely, a Plan Vivo Version 4 ex-ante certificate can have been issued and retired while part of the sequestration it represents is still expected to occur in future.
This is particularly important in Plan Vivo, where Version 4 ex-ante certificates and the Version 5 treatment of forecast, reported and verified outcomes should not be described as though they were the same state of carbon delivery.
When I read a proposal, I therefore want two pieces of information separately:
What carbon outcome does the unit represent?
What state has that outcome reached?
Without both, “one carbon removal credit” is not precise enough for procurement.
Carbon removal credits vs avoided-emission credits
A carbon removal credit represents CO2 being taken from the atmosphere and stored. An avoided-emission credit represents an emission that would otherwise have occurred being prevented.
Both can finance worthwhile climate action, but they describe different physical outcomes.
A reforestation project can remove atmospheric carbon as trees grow. A forest-protection project may instead prevent stored carbon from being released by stopping deforestation.
C Level increasingly leads its commercial carbon offer with removals and regeneration because that is where much buyer demand has moved. I would not turn that market preference into a claim that every removal is superior to every avoidance project. A weak removal is still a weak credit.
We cover the underlying comparison in carbon removal vs avoided emissions. The useful question here is what state the removal itself has reached.
Has the carbon actually been removed yet?
A carbon removal purchase can refer to a future outcome, a reported result, an independently verified removal, an issued credit or a retired credit. Those states describe different things and should appear explicitly in the buyer file.
A useful lifecycle is:
Future / expected → achieved / reported → independently verified → issued → retired
The exact terminology varies between programmes, so I would not force every registry into this vocabulary. The underlying questions remain the same.
| Carbon removal state | What it tells the buyer |
|---|---|
| Future / expected | The CO2 is forecast to be removed later |
| Reported / achieved | The project reports that the removal has occurred |
| Independently verified | A third party has checked the result against the methodology |
| Issued | A registry has created the credit or certificate |
| Retired | The unit has been taken out of circulation for a stated use or beneficiary |
A purchase can move through these states over years. Retirement is therefore not proof, by itself, that all of the physical removal represented by a future-crediting model has already occurred.
Future and expected carbon removal
Forward carbon removal is bought before the final removal has been delivered.
That sounds like a weakness until you look at what is being financed.
A forest needs seed, nursery capacity, land preparation, planting, technical support and monitoring before it contains years of accumulated carbon. A direct-air-capture facility needs capital before it can operate at scale. A biochar producer may need long-term demand before investing in more production capacity.
The 2026 State of Carbon Dioxide Removal records voluntary contracts for about 0.04 billion tonnes of removal, against novel removal of about 0.002 billion tonnes a year. That gap is part of how the market is trying to build future supply.
The commercial question is therefore not whether forward purchasing is good or bad. It is whether the company knows it is buying future delivery and has a reason for doing so.
If the goal is to help create additional removal capacity, that can be a perfectly sensible purchase.
If the goal is to substantiate an already achieved removal this year, it is the wrong asset.
Reported and independently verified carbon removal
Once the project reports that removal has occurred, the evidence position is stronger, but reporting and independent verification are still different.
The monitoring report should show the relevant period, methodology and quantified outcome. Independent verification then tests that result against the applicable rules.
I would want to know exactly what the verification covers. “The project is verified” is too broad if the units being offered relate to a different monitoring period or a future issuance.
For forestry, that may mean checking field measurements, sampling, growth models and risk deductions.
For engineered removals, it may mean checking feedstock, energy use, capture data, transport, storage and lifecycle emissions.
The underlying question is the same: what has somebody independent actually checked?
Issued and retired carbon removal credits
Issuance is the point at which the registry creates the identifiable unit.
For a buyer needing carbon removal available for immediate use, issuance is one of the most useful practical tests. It means there is an actual registry instrument rather than only an expected future delivery.
Retirement is the later accounting step that prevents the unit being transferred and used again.
The buyer should keep the registry evidence, serial or unit identifiers, project and methodology, monitoring period or vintage, retirement date and beneficiary.
Some durable removals can now be bought in this state. Gevo Carbon, for example, currently offers issued Puro.earth CORCs from biogenic CO2 geological storage at $200 per tonne, with retirement after purchase. View the offer.
That is a different procurement proposition from a multi-year offtake for tonnes expected in 2030. The fact that both are called carbon removal should not hide the difference.
What methods produce carbon removal credits?
Carbon removal credits can come from biological, geochemical and engineered methods, with different storage reservoirs and evidence requirements.
| Method | How atmospheric CO2 is removed | Storage | Main buyer question |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reforestation / agroforestry | Photosynthesis | Trees, biomass and soils | Reversal, land tenure and long-term management |
| Soil carbon | Biological sequestration | Soil | Measurement and reversal |
| Biochar | Biomass is converted into stable carbon | Biochar in soil/materials | Feedstock, lifecycle emissions and stability |
| BECCS / BioCCS | Biomass absorbs CO2; processing emissions are captured | Geological storage | Biomass sourcing and full lifecycle accounting |
| Direct air capture with storage | CO2 is captured directly from ambient air | Geological storage | Energy, cost, delivery and storage evidence |
| Enhanced weathering | Accelerated mineral reactions consume atmospheric CO2 | Dissolved/mineral carbon | Reaction measurement and lifecycle emissions |
| Mineralisation | CO2 forms stable carbonate minerals | Mineral | Reaction evidence and material source |
The table is more useful to me than a league table because no one method wins on every attribute.
Reforestation can create biodiversity and community value at relatively low cost but carries biological reversal risk. Geological storage can offer much greater durability but may cost considerably more and, in some technologies, still has limited current supply. Biochar sits somewhere else again.
The project should be judged against the job the buyer needs it to do.
Does carbon removal mean high integrity?
No. “Removal” tells you the type of carbon outcome being claimed. It does not establish whether the credit is high integrity.
A removal still needs credible evidence on additionality, quantification, MRV, lifecycle emissions, storage, double counting and safeguards.
I have seen the market drift at times towards treating the word “removal” as a quality mark in itself. That is risky because the category contains everything from established forestry systems to technologies that are still proving their measurement or delivery at commercial scale.
An expensive removal is not automatically a good removal either.
For a fuller assessment of additionality, permanence, leakage, verification and registry evidence, see how to choose high-integrity carbon credits. On this page I would add one removal-specific test: has the carbon reached the state the seller’s language suggests it has?
How long do carbon removal credits store CO2?
Carbon removal storage can range from decades in biological reservoirs to centuries or millennia in some mineral and geological systems.
Durability matters because the climate effect of fossil CO2 can persist for a very long time. The revised Oxford Principles therefore recommend moving towards removals with increasingly durable storage as organisations approach net zero. View the publication.
The buyer still needs to keep durability separate from delivery state. A promised 1,000-year tonne due in six years and a verified biological removal available today answer different questions.
Biological carbon removal and reversal risk
Forests, soils and wetlands can store large amounts of carbon, but the storage remains exposed to fire, drought, disease, harvesting and future land-use decisions.
Good projects manage those risks with monitoring, buffer pools, replacement mechanisms and long-term project rules.
On community land, I would also look at the economics underneath those formal mechanisms. If a farmer is expected to keep land under trees for decades, does the project continue to make that choice worthwhile? Are land rights clear? Who receives the carbon revenue? What happens after the early payment years?
A risk buffer can compensate for some quantified carbon loss. It cannot make an unworkable land arrangement durable.
Durable carbon removal for centuries or longer
Geological storage, mineralisation and some biochar pathways can keep carbon out of the atmosphere for centuries or longer with comparatively low reversal risk.
That makes them particularly relevant to long-lived residual emissions.
The market sometimes turns that fact into a simple hierarchy in which the longest storage duration automatically means the best credit. I would be more cautious.
A highly durable pathway can still have poor lifecycle accounting, weak additionality, uncertain delivery or a methodology that has not matured enough for the buyer’s intended use.
Durability answers one important question. It does not answer all of them.
What do carbon removal credits cost in 2026?
Carbon removal credit prices range from tens of pounds per tonne for some future nature-based removals to hundreds of dollars per tonne for durable engineered removals.
The spread reflects technology, storage duration, project maturity, delivery year, current issuance status, contract size and scarcity.
Nature-based carbon removal credit prices
The UK Woodland Carbon Code gives a useful current reference.
Its reported average price for Pending Issuance Units in 2025 was £28.32 per tCO2e. More than 99% of Woodland Carbon Code units represented in the published dataset were pending units rather than verified Woodland Carbon Units. View the statistics.
That makes £28.32 useful evidence for future UK woodland carbon. It is not a universal market price for an already achieved, verified and issued removal.
International reforestation prices vary further by geography, standard, project quality and contract structure.
Durable carbon removal credit prices
Durable CDR is generally much more expensive.
CDR.fyi reported a weighted average of $320 per tonne for durable removal sold in 2024, down from $490 in 2023. Its May 2026 pricing survey also showed that buyers and suppliers still have materially different price expectations across removal methods. View the 2024 review and the 2026 survey.
I would not compare those figures with woodland carbon as if they were supermarket prices for the same product. Delivery status, durability and technology are all moving at once.
Our carbon credit price guide deals with the broader price market. Here, price belongs after the buyer understands what the tonne is.
What should businesses check before buying carbon removal credits?
Before buying a carbon removal credit, a business should be able to answer what the project is, how the CO2 is removed, whether the removal has happened, how it was measured, how long it should remain stored and where the exact unit is recorded.
This is the procurement record I would want:
| Buyer question | Evidence to request |
|---|---|
| What project or activity is this? | Project name, operator and location |
| What removal method is used? | Methodology and project documentation |
| Has the removal happened yet? | Future, reported or verified status |
| What period does the tonne relate to? | Monitoring period, vintage or delivery date |
| How is the carbon measured? | MRV methodology and monitoring report |
| Has it been independently verified? | Verification report and verifier |
| How long is the carbon expected to remain stored? | Durability/permanence documentation |
| What happens if storage is reversed? | Buffer, replacement, insurance or liability mechanism |
| Where is the unit recorded? | Registry |
| Can this exact unit be traced? | Serial number or unit identifier |
| Has it been retired? | Retirement record |
| What can the company say about it? | Current claims guidance |
| What does the price include? | Tonne price, fees, retirement and advisory costs |
Not every small purchase needs a 40-page diligence report, but the answers should exist.
The point is not to make carbon purchasing bureaucratic. It is to stop a company paying for one thing and communicating another.
How to buy carbon removal credits
Businesses can buy issued removal credits for immediate retirement or contract future removals through direct project purchases, providers, marketplaces and long-term offtake agreements.
The procurement route should follow the intended use.
Spot purchases of issued carbon removal credits
Spot buying is the cleanest route where a company needs removals that already exist.
The buyer selects issued units, checks the project and methodology, agrees retirement instructions and receives the registry evidence afterwards.
Because the credit already exists, much of the future delivery risk has disappeared.
The project-quality questions have not.
For a company buying a modest volume for a current programme, I would usually prefer this simplicity unless there is a deliberate reason to finance future capacity.
Forward carbon removal purchases and offtake agreements
Forward purchasing commits the buyer to tonnes expected later.
For large buyers, long-term offtakes can secure supply and help projects finance new capacity. The same economic logic applies to early-stage forest restoration, even though the physical project looks completely different from a new DAC plant.
I would treat the contract as a supply agreement rather than a promise expressed only in tonnes.
What are the delivery dates? What counts as a delivered tonne? Which methodology must apply? Who carries the risk if the project is delayed or produces less carbon than forecast?
A strong climate project can still become a bad procurement outcome if those questions were never settled.
Carbon removal delivery protection and replacement clauses
A material forward purchase should say what happens when delivery does not match the plan.
Depending on the agreement, that can include annual delivery schedules, milestone reporting, replacement credits, remedies for delay, methodology requirements, price treatment for replacements and rights if the project fails entirely.
For a smaller project agreement the paperwork may be simpler, but the risk still has to sit somewhere.
How businesses use carbon removal credits
Businesses use carbon removal credits for two broad purposes: financing climate action outside their value chain and, at the appropriate stage of a net-zero pathway, neutralising residual emissions.
Those uses should not be collapsed into one generic “offsetting” claim.
Carbon removal credits for climate contribution and BVCM
A company can fund removals outside its value chain while continuing to reduce its own emissions. Some size that funding with an internal carbon price on their own emissions.
SBTi has described this broader activity as Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, and Version 2.0 of its Corporate Net-Zero Standard sets out Ongoing Emissions Responsibility.
The carbon finance sits alongside the corporate inventory rather than being deducted from Scope 1, 2 or 3 target progress.
That gives companies room to fund future removal capacity before they reach net zero without pretending the purchase has already reduced their own footprint.
Carbon removal credits for neutralising residual emissions
At net zero, SBTi requires residual emissions to be neutralised with eligible removals.
The final Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 2.0, published in June 2026, also says that residual emissions from long-lived greenhouse gases must be neutralised with long-lived removals. View the criteria.
That creates a different procurement problem from general climate contribution. The buyer increasingly needs removals with a durability profile suitable for the residual emissions being counterbalanced.
VCMI and ICVCM add separate claim and credit-integrity requirements. Our VCMI Claims Code guide and SBTi and carbon credits guide own those frameworks in detail.
Carbon removal standards and registries in 2026
Carbon removal credits are issued under different standards and registries depending on the method, geography and market.
The programme tells you which rulebook applies. It does not tell you, by itself, what state the individual tonne has reached.
Puro.earth and Isometric durable carbon removal
Puro.earth is one of the established specialist durable-removal programmes and issues CO2 Removal Certificates, or CORCs, under approved methodologies.
Isometric has also become an important standard and registry for durable CDR.
Both operate in areas such as biochar and other engineered or geochemical pathways, although their precise method coverage and accounting approaches differ.
For procurement, I would read the specific methodology and project record rather than compare logos.
Plan Vivo and nature-based carbon removal
Plan Vivo is the carbon programme C Level knows best.
Its PV Climate programme supports community and smallholder land projects, including reforestation and agroforestry. PV Climate became CCP-Eligible at programme level in August 2026, subject to ICVCM’s conditions. The decision applies to projects registered under Plan Vivo’s Project Requirements version 5.7 or later, and individual methodology/category assessment remains a separate step for CCP-labelled units. View the ICVCM decision.
Plan Vivo is also a useful example of why delivery terminology matters. Version 4 ex-ante certificates and Version 5 forecast, reported and verified outcomes should not be treated as synonyms.
For a buyer, the project methodology and exact unit state still need checking.
EU CRCF carbon removal certification
The EU Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming Certification Framework is developing a regulatory certification architecture for removals and carbon farming.
In February 2026 the European Commission adopted methodologies for direct air capture with carbon storage, biogenic emissions capture with carbon storage and biochar carbon removal. View the announcement.
In July 2026 it added carbon-farming methodologies for mineral-soil agriculture and agroforestry, peatland rewetting and restoration, and afforestation. View the announcement.
A methodology existing under CRCF does not mean every voluntary credit using a similar technology is automatically CRCF-certified. The scheme and unit status still need checking.
C Level carbon removal procurement
C Level’s strongest removal experience is in community-led nature projects, where the relationship between early finance and later carbon delivery is impossible to ignore.
That experience is useful beyond forestry because it forces the buyer to distinguish financing a process from evidencing its final outcome.
CommuniTree carbon removal: future finance vs delivered carbon
CommuniTree in Nicaragua has been operating since 2010, and C Level has worked with the programme since its early years.
Plan Vivo currently records more than five million Plan Vivo Certificates issued for the project. CommuniTree is registered under PV Climate Version 4, which allows ex-ante certificates linked to future sequestration commitments.
I would not translate that issuance figure into “five million tonnes already removed and independently verified ex-post”. That would describe a different evidence state.
Our 2023 visit made the reason for that distinction very tangible. We saw seed collection, nurseries, new planting, young forest and established forest within the same programme. The carbon outcome develops over time because the forest develops over time.
The early finance is not a flaw in the system. It helps pay for the work that eventually produces the forest.
The claim simply has to stay faithful to the state of the carbon.
A buyer funding future CommuniTree removal should be able to say exactly that. A buyer seeking an ex-post verified tonne should ask for evidence of an ex-post verified tonne.
Read about the CommuniTree project
If you want to fund CommuniTree, tell us what the company needs to be able to say afterwards. We will show you which units fit, whether they are future or delivered, and the evidence behind them.
When carbon removal credits are the wrong purchase
Carbon removal credits are the wrong purchase if they are being used to avoid a feasible internal emissions reduction that belongs in a carbon reduction plan, if the delivery state cannot support the intended claim, or if the buyer actually needs a different environmental outcome.
A 2031 removal contract does not solve a 2026 need for an issued tonne.
A geological removal does not repair a weak reduction plan merely because its storage is durable.
And if the company’s real objective is biodiversity, direct nature finance or a biodiversity credit mechanism may be a clearer instrument than trying to make a carbon credit carry the whole story.
The removal label should narrow the decision. It should not end the diligence.
Carbon removal credits FAQ
Carbon removal credits are a specific type of carbon credit representing atmospheric CO2 removal and storage.
“Carbon offset” is a broader term that has historically covered removals, avoided emissions and emissions reductions. A company should describe the actual carbon outcome rather than assume those categories are interchangeable.
Some removal methods have much longer storage durations than others.
Forests and soils can store carbon for decades or longer but remain exposed to biological and land-use reversal. Geological storage and mineralisation can offer storage measured in centuries or millennia. The buyer should check the method-specific durability and reversal rules.
Carbon credits do not normally reduce reported Scope 1, 2 or 3 emissions or count as progress towards an SBTi emissions-reduction target.
Under SBTi’s Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 2.0, eligible removals are used to neutralise residual emissions at net zero, while removals also take a larger role in Ongoing Emissions Responsibility before net zero for relevant companies.
Yes.
Businesses can buy some issued nature-based and durable removal credits for immediate retirement, while other supply is sold through forward contracts for future delivery.
The buyer should establish which of those states applies before comparing prices or claims.
There is no single best removal type for every company.
The right choice depends on whether the buyer needs current or future delivery, the required storage durability, the available budget, methodology confidence, project impacts and the intended corporate use.
I would rather choose a credit that clearly fits those requirements than buy the technology currently attracting the most attention.
Buying carbon removal credits from C Level
C Level has worked with community-led carbon projects since 2000 and now leads its carbon offer increasingly with removals and regeneration.
We can help a business define the kind of removal it needs, check the project and unit evidence, distinguish future from delivered carbon, arrange purchase and retirement, and keep the public claim within what the evidence supports. Where the emissions base is not settled yet, our carbon footprint consultancy starts there.
Our direct project relationships are strongest in nature-based removal, particularly Plan Vivo projects such as CommuniTree. Where a buyer needs durable engineered removal as part of a wider portfolio, the same first question still applies:
What exactly are you buying today?
- Explore C Level carbon projects
- Read our nature-based carbon credits guide
- Read carbon removal vs avoided emissions
- Read our carbon credit price guide
- Read how to choose high-integrity carbon credits
- Read our guide to carbon credits for business
Sources and methodology
This article was checked against current primary market, standards and regulatory sources on 24 September 2026.
- State of Carbon Dioxide Removal, 3rd Edition, 2026. Source for the 2.2 billion tonnes removed each year, the 0.002 billion tonnes from novel methods, and the 0.04 billion tonnes contracted in the voluntary market. View the report.
- SBTi, Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 2.0, Criteria. Source for neutralising residual emissions with eligible removals, long-lived removals for long-lived gases, and Ongoing Emissions Responsibility. The standard is dated June 2026. View the criteria.
- Oxford Principles for Net Zero Aligned Carbon Offsetting, revised edition. Source for the shift towards more durable storage as organisations approach net zero. View the publication.
- CDR.fyi, 2024 Year in Review. Source for the weighted average price of durable removal sold in 2024 and 2023. View the review.
- CDR.fyi, CDR Pricing Survey, May 2026. Source for the gap between buyer and supplier price expectations. View the survey.
- Woodland Carbon Code, UK carbon prices. Source for the 2025 average Pending Issuance Unit price and the share of pending units. View the statistics.
- Gevo Carbon, Buy Now. Source for issued Puro.earth CORCs from biogenic CO2 geological storage offered at $200 per tonne. View the offer.
- European Commission, EU sets world’s first voluntary standard for permanent carbon removals, 3 February 2026. Source for the CRCF methodologies for direct air capture, biogenic emissions capture and biochar. View the announcement.
- European Commission, certification methodologies for carbon farming under the CRCF Regulation, 10 July 2026. Source for the carbon-farming methodologies. View the announcement.
- ICVCM, CCP-Eligible programme decisions for BioCarbon Standard, Cercarbono and Plan Vivo PV Climate, August 2026. Source for Plan Vivo PV Climate’s programme-level decision, its conditions, and its limit to projects registered under Project Requirements version 5.7 or later. View the decision.
- Plan Vivo, CommuniTree Nicaragua. Source for the 2010 start date, the 5,000,358 certificates issued and the project’s current listing under Version 4. View the project record.