JPMorgan Chase has signed two major carbon removal agreements this month. The first one involves a purchase of 60,000 metric tons of durable carbon dioxide removal (CDR) over ten years from climate startup Graphyte. The deal uses biomass-based technology that converts agricultural and timber waste into stable carbon blocks stored underground.
In parallel, JPMorgan has also secured 85,000 tons of forest-based carbon removal credits through improved forest management projects. These credits, marketed by Anew Climate, come from U.S. forest projects managed by Aurora Sustainable Lands.
They aim to extend harvest cycles, boost forest health, and enhance long-term carbon storage. The approach helps maintain higher carbon stocks in working forests while supporting biodiversity and sustainable timber production.
Taylor Wright, Head of Operational Sustainability at JPMorgan Chase, noted:
“We were excited to add credits from the Little Bear Forestry Project to our carbon removal portfolio. The dynamic baselining provides meaningful evidence that these credits meet a high threshold for quality, supporting our interests as both a buyer and as a steward of market integrity.”
Carbon Removal Still Small, But Growing Fast
The agreements are part of a broader push by the bank to expand its carbon removal portfolio. While the total volume is small compared to global emissions, the deals highlight a shift in corporate climate strategies.
Companies are now focusing more on durable carbon removal, not just emission reductions. JPMorgan’s mix of engineered and nature-based solutions also reflects a growing trend toward portfolio diversification in carbon removal sourcing.
Carbon removal remains a small but critical part of climate action. The United States emits about 5 billion tons of CO₂ per year, showing how limited current removal volumes still are.
However, long-term demand is expected to grow sharply. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that by 2100, the world might need to remove 100 to 1,000 gigatons of CO₂. By mid-century, annual removal should reach about 10 gigatons per year.
Today’s market is far from that scale. Most carbon removal deals are measured in thousands or hundreds of thousands of tons. But these early contracts are seen as critical. They help build supply, reduce costs, and attract investment into new technologies.
JPMorgan’s latest deals fit this pattern. Together, the 60,000-ton biomass contract and 85,000-ton forest-based agreement provide long-term demand signals across different removal pathways. This helps scale both emerging engineered solutions and more established nature-based approaches.
Turning Waste Into Permanent Carbon Storage
Graphyte’s process, known as “carbon casting,” uses natural carbon capture through plants. Biomass absorbs CO₂ through photosynthesis. The material is then dried, compressed, and sealed to prevent decomposition. This allows the carbon to remain stored for long periods.
The company uses waste materials such as crop residues and timber byproducts. This reduces the need for new land use and lowers overall costs. The process also uses relatively low energy compared to other removal methods.
Projects linked to the JPMorgan deal include facilities in Arkansas and Arizona. These projects also provide added benefits. For example, using forest thinning residues can help reduce wildfire risk and support land restoration.
This reflects a broader trend in carbon markets. Buyers are increasingly looking for projects that deliver both carbon removal and environmental co-benefits. The bank’s forest-based deal reinforces this trend by supporting improved forest management practices that enhance carbon storage while maintaining productive landscapes.
JPMorgan’s $1 Trillion Net Zero Strategy and Climate Finance Push
JPMorgan’s carbon removal investments are part of a wider climate strategy. The bank has committed to facilitating $1 trillion in climate and sustainable development financing by 2030. It has already deployed about $309 billion between 2021 and 2024 toward this goal.
In addition to financing, the bank is building a diversified carbon removal portfolio. Since 2023, it has signed deals to cut hundreds of thousands of tons of CO₂. This includes a plan for up to 800,000 tons of carbon removal through long-term contracts.
The company aims to match its unabated operational emissions with durable carbon removal by 2030.
JPMorgan is also investing in a range of technologies. These include direct air capture, bio-oil sequestration, biomass storage, and forest-based removal. Its latest forest deal shows a continued commitment to high-quality, nature-based removals that meet stricter standards for durability and verification.
This diversified approach helps reduce risk while supporting different pathways to scale. Compared to many financial institutions, JPMorgan remains an early mover. Most large buyers in carbon removal are still technology companies, particularly Microsoft.
Microsoft Pullback Shakes Market Confidence
However, Microsoft, the largest buyer of carbon removal credits, has reportedly paused new purchases.
The tech giant has played a dominant role in the market. It accounts for up to 90% of global carbon removal purchases and has contracted more than 45 million tons of CO₂ removal to date. In 2025 alone, the company signed agreements for 45 million tons, doubling its 2024 volume and far exceeding any other buyer.
However, reports suggest the company may be adjusting the pace of new deals. This shift does not mean the end of carbon removal demand, but it signals a transition.
The market can no longer rely on a single dominant buyer. In this context, JPMorgan’s continued activity—across both engineered and nature-based deals—shows how new buyers are stepping in to support market stability.
Market Trends: From Cheap Offsets to High-Durability Carbon Credits
The carbon market is evolving quickly. Traditional carbon credits often focus on avoiding emissions, such as protecting forests. However, there is growing demand for removal-based credits that physically take CO₂ out of the atmosphere.
Corporate net-zero goals drive this shift. Many companies now face limits on how much they can reduce emissions directly. Carbon removal is becoming necessary to address remaining emissions.
At the same time, supply remains limited. High-quality removal credits are scarce. This keeps carbon prices high, especially for engineered solutions.
Early buyers like JPMorgan are helping shape the market. Long-term contracts provide price signals and encourage project development. They also help define standards for quality and verification.
Another key trend is the focus on durability. Buyers prefer solutions that store carbon for decades or centuries, rather than short-term offsets.
Early-Stage Market, High-Stakes Growth
Despite growing momentum, carbon removal is still in its early stages. Current volumes are small compared to global needs. Policy support is also limited in many regions.
However, corporate demand is rising. Deals like JPMorgan’s show how private sector investment is driving the market forward.
The combination of long-term contracts, new technologies, and climate finance is expected to accelerate growth. Over time, this could help bring down costs and expand supply.
For now, the focus remains on building scale. Each new agreement adds to a growing pipeline of projects. These projects will play a key role in meeting long-term climate targets.
JPMorgan’s latest purchases may be modest in size. But together, they reflect a larger shift. Carbon removal is moving from early experimentation to a more structured and investable market, supported by a broader mix of buyers and solutions.
The post JPMorgan’s Carbon Bet Marks a Turning Point for the Removal Market appeared first on Carbon Credits.
What auditors actually test, where projects actually fail, and the contract clauses that protect you before signature.
The meeting happens about fourteen months after the contract was signed. Your assurance provider has reached the nature-based investment line in your Scope 3 file, and the partner across the table has exactly two questions. How do you know the reductions happened? And how do you know they would not have happened anyway?
The first question is MRV: measurement, reporting, and verification. The second is additionality. Between them, they decide whether your nature-based investment counts, in your inventory, in your disclosure, and in front of your board. Everything else in the project documentation is supporting material for these two answers.
This article walks through what each question actually tests, where projects most commonly fail, what digital MRV has changed (and what it has not), and the contract clauses that protect you. The goal is to give you the diligence framework before you sign, because after the credit issues is the wrong time to discover the answers were weak.
What MRV actually verifies
MRV is the machinery that turns a field intervention into a defensible number. Measurement covers the data: biomass surveys, soil sampling, remote sensing, activity records from participating farms. Reporting covers the translation of that data into claimed reductions under a recognised methodology. Verification covers the independent check: an accredited third party tests the reporting against the methodology and the evidence.
The methodologies live in registries. Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard and the Gold Standard are the two largest for nature-based projects, and each publishes the methodology documents, monitoring requirements, and verification protocols that a project must follow. The ICVCM Assessment Framework now sits above the registries, assessing whole methodologies against the Core Carbon Principles and granting the CCP label to those that pass.
For a buyer, the practical questions are concrete. What is the monitoring frequency, and is it specified in the project design document or left vague? Who is the verifier, how were they selected, and how often do they rotate? What raw data do you, the buyer, get access to, and in what format? A project that answers these in writing is a different procurement than one that answers them in a sales call.
What additionality actually proves
Additionality asks whether the intervention caused the reduction, or whether the reduction would have happened anyway. The test is a counterfactual: what would this landscape, this farm, this forest have done without the project’s money?
Three forms matter in practice. Financial additionality asks whether the project needed the carbon revenue to proceed. Regulatory additionality asks whether the activity was already required by law. Common-practice additionality asks whether the activity is already standard in the region, in which case paying for it buys you nothing the world was not getting for free.
The reason additionality dominates audit conversations is recent history. Research published in 2023, including the Science paper examined at length in our piece on conventional offsets and boardroom credibility, found that a large share of REDD+ credits failed the counterfactual test because baselines were inflated. The market response was a wave of methodology revisions at Verra and the arrival of independent ratings agencies whose entire business is re-testing additionality claims. The Carbon Credit Quality Initiative publishes transparent scoring of methodologies on exactly this dimension, and it is free to consult before you sign anything.
Where projects most commonly fail the test
Five failure modes account for most of the wreckage.
- Inflated baselines. The counterfactual assumes more deforestation, more degradation, or lower yields than the evidence supports. The claimed reduction is the gap between reality and the baseline, so an inflated baseline manufactures reductions from nothing.
- Unaccounted leakage. The project protects one forest and the logging moves to the next valley. The methodology is supposed to net this out; weak projects estimate it optimistically.
- Thin permanence protection. Nature-based carbon can reverse: fire, pest, drought, or a change of landowner. Buffer pools and insurance mechanisms exist for this, but their adequacy varies enormously between projects.
- Attribution and double counting. In supply chain settings, the same reduction can be claimed by the supplier, the buyer, and a credit purchaser unless contracts prevent it. Our Insetting vs Offsetting piece covers the inventory rules; the point here is that the auditor will ask who else is counting this tonne.
- Stale monitoring. Data collected at validation and never refreshed. The IPCC AR6 Working Group III land-sector chapter documents how quickly carbon stocks respond to disturbance; a three-year-old measurement is a historical artifact, not a current claim.
What digital MRV changes, and what it does not
Digital MRV is the genuine improvement in the field. Satellite remote sensing, including the free archives at NASA Earthdata, allows biomass and land-cover change to be monitored continuously rather than at multi-year verification intervals. Soil carbon models calibrated with physical sampling reduce the cost of agricultural measurement. The practical effect is more frequent data at lower cost, which compresses the window in which a problem can hide.
What digital MRV does not change is judgment. Baselines are still human decisions about counterfactuals. Additionality is still an argument, not a measurement. Research groups such as the Oxford Smith School have been clear on this point: better sensors improve the M in MRV, but the integrity questions live in the assumptions, and assumptions need governance, not gadgets.
For a buyer, the test is simple. Ask the provider what is measured by instrument, what is estimated by model, and what is assumed by methodology. A provider who can answer that question crisply understands their own evidence chain. A provider who cannot is selling you their confidence rather than their data.
What to require in your contract
The diligence above converts into five contract clauses.
- Monitoring cadence and buyer data access, specified by dataset and frequency.
- Verifier independence, named accreditation, and rotation terms.
- Baseline revision triggers, so the counterfactual updates when the methodology or the evidence changes.
- Reversal liability and buffer adequacy, with the mechanism named and sized.
- Documentation handover in audit-ready form, so the evidence file your assurance provider needs already exists.
None of these clauses is exotic. All of them are absent from weak contracts, and their absence is the most reliable early signal that the MRV and additionality answers will be weak too.
If you are evaluating a nature-based investment and want the MRV and additionality stress-tested before signature rather than after, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can run that review against any project on your shortlist, and design nature-based supply chain investments where the evidence chain is built audit-first. Schedule a consultation.
Sources and further reading
- ICVCM: Core Carbon Principles Assessment Framework
- Verra: Verified Carbon Standard
- Gold Standard for the Global Goals
- Carbon Credit Quality Initiative: Methodology quality scores
- University of Oxford Smith School: Sustainable finance research
- IPCC AR6 Working Group III, Chapter 7: AFOLU
- NASA Earthdata satellite remote sensing archive
EU Directive: Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT)
The EU Directive, Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT), takes effect on September 27, 2026.(1) The goal of ECGT is to protect consumers by ensuring that environmental claims are fair, understandable, and reliable. This regulation does create a new compliance requirement for businesses, but it also provides sustainability and marketing teams with important guidance that helps create consistency in sustainability communications.
Key takeaways
- ECGT takes effect September 27, 2026, and prohibits claims that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive environmental impact based on offsetting alone.
- Named example phrases the regulation prohibits include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint.
- ECGT does not want to deter investment in carbon credits. It wants companies to communicate the real benefits of the projects they support instead.
- SBTi’s guidance recommends framing carbon credits as taking responsibility for ongoing emissions, not as making a product or company neutral.
- Voluntary carbon projects deliver real climate progress: reducing super-pollutants, protecting and restoring ecosystems, and supporting communities.
Regarding carbon credits specifically, voluntary carbon projects deliver important climate progress and environmental benefits that provide many talking points for companies. They reduce climate super-pollutants by removing industrial emissions like methane, N2O, HFCs and others. They protect and restore valuable ecosystems and carbon sinks like forests, mangroves and grasslands. They help communities by reducing local pollution, creating employment opportunities, improving access to healthcare, and more.
The Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), a global leader in business climate action, concludes that alongside aggressive decarbonization, we should also use high quality carbon credits to take responsibility for our ongoing emissions. SBTi recognizes that carbon credits are important “to help limit temperature overshoot, mitigate transition risks, and support climate solutions.”(2)
ECGT language on carbon offsetting says that they do not want to deter investment in carbon credits. They just want companies to focus on communicating the benefits of the projects they support and avoid claims beyond the scope of carbon credits, which is good for everyone, companies and consumers alike.
The regulation reinforces that carbon credits do not change the sustainability of your products, so carbon credit buyers should not suggest that their products are more sustainable because of carbon credits. Instead, companies need to promote their climate contributions as a way to compensate or take responsibility for their carbon emissions by supporting projects that do great things like reducing global carbon emissions, reducing pollution, preventing deforestation, restoring forests, and more.
ECGT language related to carbon offsetting
The regulation is particularly focused on prohibiting claims, based on offsetting greenhouse gas emissions, that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. These claims are prohibited in all circumstances because they mislead consumers into believing the claim relates to the product itself, or to how it was made and supplied, or into thinking that using the product carries no environmental impact at all.
Named examples of prohibited claims include:
- climate neutral
- CO2 neutral certified
- carbon positive
- climate net zero
- climate compensated
- reduced climate impact
- limited CO2 footprint
These claims are only allowed when they rest on a product’s actual lifecycle impact, not on offsetting emissions outside that product’s value chain, since the two are not equivalent. This prohibition does not stop companies from advertising their investments in environmental initiatives, including carbon credit projects, as long as they present that information in a way that is not misleading and that meets the other requirements of Union law.(1)
SBTi also provides guidance on climate contribution language in its Corporate Net Zero Standard Version 2.0 Draft for Second Public Consultation, November 2025. While the SBTi language is fairly technical, it has a good framework for crafting a climate contribution message.
SBTi Language for Carbon Credits(3)
- Take responsibility for ongoing emissions by delivering mitigation impact contributions
- Carbon credits certify the mitigation outcomes of projects that reduce, avoid, or remove carbon emissions
- Activities that reduce emissions from emission sources not located within the company’s value chain
- Activities that conserve, protect, and enhance natural carbon sinks
- Activities that capture and store carbon in storage pools
SBTi’s draft standard also walks through sample claim language for this kind of contribution. In general, the samples move from a simple percentage statement, to naming a specific verified tonnage tied to that percentage, to a fuller statement that breaks the tonnage into reductions versus removals. Across all three, the framing stays consistent: a company took responsibility for a defined share of its ongoing emissions over a set period, by funding a specific, verified amount of mitigation, achieved through emission reductions or removals.(3)
FAQ: ECGT and Carbon Credit Claims
When does the ECGT directive take effect?
The rules apply across the EU from September 27, 2026, after member states transposed the directive into national law by March 27, 2026.
Does ECGT ban carbon offsetting?
No. It bans specific marketing claims that a product or service is environmentally neutral, reduced impact, or positive based on offsetting. Advertising investment in carbon credit projects themselves is still allowed if it is not misleading.
What phrases does ECGT specifically prohibit?
Named examples include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint, when those claims are based on offsetting rather than a product’s actual lifecycle impact.
How should a company describe its carbon credit purchases instead?
SBTi’s guidance recommends stating the specific verified tonnage of emissions reductions or removals funded and describing that as taking responsibility for a defined share of ongoing emissions, rather than claiming the company or product is neutral.
Does this rule apply to company level sustainability claims too?
ECGT is focused on claims about specific products and services in consumer marketing. Broader company level sustainability communication is a separate matter still governed by other existing rules.
While ECGT does add a new compliance burden for businesses, it helps create consistency in sustainability messaging that is important to building confidence in voluntary carbon projects and scaling the industry to help us achieve progress on global carbon emissions.
Disclaimer: Terrapass does not provide legal or regulatory advice. Any interpretation of regulation must be approved by your legal representative.
References:
(1) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/825/oj
(2) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/Corporate-Net-Zero-Standard-version-2.pdf
(3) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/CNZS-V2-Second-Consultation-Draft.pdf
The post The EU’s New Green Claims Rules and Carbon Credits appeared first on Terrapass.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits