Carbon removal has become the darling of the carbon credit world. Nature-based carbon removals increased by some 50 percent between 2023 and 2024, as buyers shifted their strategies to prioritize removals, and high-durability removal retirements more than doubled in that period, according to estimates from Carbon Direct.
The preference for removals has meant a decline in credit purchases from projects that avoid or reduce global emissions — for example, by keeping the planet’s existing forests standing, providing clean cooking stoves or reducing landfill methane emissions.
As a result, carbon removal credits command higher prices in the voluntary carbon market, according to a recent study from Calyx Global, a carbon credit ratings agency. In 2024, credits from forest projects that remove carbon from the atmosphere were consistently priced two to four times higher than credits from forest projects that reduce and avoid emissions, according to an analysis by Abatable, a carbon credit sourcing and intelligence firm.
Behind the growing preference for removals is a perception that these carbon credits are, by definition, high quality. After several reports that some carbon projects have underdelivered on their projected impact, buyers are looking for a way to ensure their dollars drive real climate benefit.
But the preference for removals over reduction or avoidance credits is based more on fear of reputational damage than on concrete evidence that removals are consistently higher quality. “We see a disproportionate growing interest on the removals side,” said Spencer Meyer, chief ratings officer at BeZero Carbon, another carbon credit ratings agency. “There’s this perception that they are safer. One thing to keep in mind is there is no atmospheric distinction between the two.”
3 reasons to consider reductions and avoidance
There’s little evidence that carbon removals are consistently of higher quality than avoidance-based projects
Carbon credit quality is multi-dimensional: It includes measures of project additionality, transparency, local community benefits, duration of carbon storage and more. One of the most common metrics of carbon credit quality is greenhouse gas integrity: the likelihood that one carbon credit avoids or removes one ton of emissions from the atmosphere.
By this metric, removal projects do not consistently outperform those that avoid or reduce emissions. In fact, more carbon avoidance projects than removals met the highest greenhouse gas integrity ratings in a recent study by Calyx Global.
Stopping emissions today has more climate benefit than removing emissions tomorrow
There’s a time value to climate action. Many emission reduction opportunities are ready for wide implementation now, while many removal opportunities will take decades to scale.
Carbon emitted to our atmosphere today will remain there for centuries, warming the planet. Avoiding those emissions today averts centuries of climate harm, does not require expensive air-capture technology and buys us time to adapt to climate change and scale other climate solutions.
Even if we can eventually remove and permanently sequester today’s emissions, they’ll already have altered our climate by that time.
Opportunities to cut emissions abound. They need funding
There’s no lack of low-cost, high-impact opportunities to cut emissions now. Keeping the planet’s existing forests standing could reduce global annual emissions by some 15 percent and recapture over 500 billion tons of CO2 over time, as those forests mature. Disseminating clean cookstoves could slash 2 percent of annual global emissions — nearly equivalent to decarbonizing the whole aviation industry.
What’s missing is the funding. The planet needs between $2 trillion and $6 trillion in additional climate finance each year to align with a 1.5-degree Celsius warming scenario.
Choose a strategy, and act
There are two situations in which a removals-only strategy makes sense: once your company has reached net zero; and within your sphere of influence.
To achieve global net zero, we’ll need to eliminate all emissions possible and remove the rest. Once companies achieve their net zero targets, they’ll need to continue purchasing carbon removals to counterbalance the residual emissions they continue to emit.
Several guidance documents outline transition pathways from funding emission reductions to removals on the path to net zero. These include the Oxford Principles for Net Zero Aligned Carbon Offsetting and the International Organization for Standardization carbon neutrality standard.
If one goal of your carbon credit strategy is to catalyze the carbon removal industry, then focusing on removal projects makes sense. In fact, some companies are uniquely positioned to identify and fund the scale-up of carbon removal technologies.
By the same token, other companies are well positioned to support projects around the globe that slash emissions today. If your climate strategy is to support and accelerate global decarbonization, then purchasing credits from any high-quality carbon project — for either reduction or removal — will benefit the planet.
