* Disseminated on behalf of ARMR Sciences Inc.
* For Accredited Investors Only. Offered pursuant to Rule 506(c). Reasonable steps to verify accreditation will be taken before any sale.
PAID ADVERTISEMENT – SPONSORED CONTENT
Artificial intelligence (AI) is helping transform medicine, finance, and logistics. But experts warn it could also be turned against us. With advanced modeling, AI can now generate chemical blueprints at a substantially faster rate than previously available processes. As a result, National security leaders and AI thought leaders (including OpenAI’s Sam Altman), have voiced concerns that adversaries could weaponize AI to design new bioweapons.
The New Threat Landscape
Fentanyl already stands as the deadliest synthetic opioid in U.S. history, responsible for more than 220 deaths every day. But fentanyl itself is only the beginning.
Analogs like carfentanil (100x stronger), xylazine (non-opioid threat), and nitazenes (40x stronger) are beginning to spread, many of which are not reversible with Narcan.
The drug supply is becoming a testing ground for increasingly lethal compounds, some of which could be accelerated by AI-driven chemistry.
This dual challenge – lethal analogs on the street and the potential for AI-designed agents – has led federal agencies, including the Department of Defense and Homeland Security, to classify fentanyl and its cousins as chemical weapons of mass destruction.
The crisis is no longer just a health issue; it is a national security emergency.
ARMR’s Defense Labs Approach
ARMR Sciences is working to position itself to confront this next phase. Its Defense Labs initiative combines AI-powered drug discovery with seven years of Department of Defense–funded science with the goal of building a scalable biodefense platform.
The company’s lead candidate, ARMR-100, designed to train the immune system to block fentanyl before it reaches the brain. In preclinical (animal) studies, ARMR-100 blocked 92% of fentanyl’s entry into the brain and eliminated its addictive behavioral effects (at this stage ARMR-100 is not FDA-approved, human safety and efficacy have not been established, and preclinical results may not predict clinical outcomes).
Unlike reactive tools such as naloxone, ARMR-100 is designed to provide months of protection – a biochemical shield against fentanyl and, eventually, other engineered analogs.
Beyond fentanyl, ARMR plans to develop additional immunotherapies for xylazine, nitazenes, and other emerging threats, creating a portfolio that evolves alongside the risks.
By leveraging AI in its own labs, ARMR seeks to stay ahead of adversaries who might misuse the same technology. And in the battle between innovation and misuse, its proactive biodefense may prove to be America’s strongest shield.
The Scale and the Urgency
With more than 130 million people in the U.S. considered high-risk – from opioid use disorder patients to first responders and military personnel – the potential market is vast.
For policymakers, the message is clear: synthetic opioids are no longer only a health crisis, but a recognized national security threat. Classified alongside terrorism and cyberwarfare, fentanyl and its analogs demand rapid action.
This urgency is creating bipartisan momentum for federal funding, regulatory fast-tracking, and stockpiling of new countermeasures.
Why Investors Should Pay Attention
For investors, we believe that ARMR represents an opportunity to back a company that combines social impact with growth potential. Its model combines biotechnology, AI, and biodefense – a convergence few companies are addressing:
- Seven years of DoD-backed research formed the platform’s foundation
- Lead candidate ARMR-100 blocked 92% of fentanyl from entering the brain in preclinical studies
- A $30M private raise is now open
- A targeted exchange listing in the future
By investing in this round, investors have a chance to support ARMR as it works to build a category-defining role in AI-powered biodefense.
* For Accredited Investors Only. This offering is made pursuant to Rule 506(c) of Regulation D. All purchasers must be accredited investors, and the issuer will take reasonable steps to verify accredited status before any sale. Investing involves high risk, including the potential loss of your entire investment.
* This is a paid advertisement for ARMR’s private offering. Please read the details of the offering at InvestARMR.com for additional information on the company and the risk factors related to the offering.
* For investors from Canada: This advertisement forms part of the issuer’s marketing materials and is incorporated by reference into the issuer’s Offering Memorandum/Private Placement Memorandum under NI 45-106. Investors must receive and review the OM/PPM and execute the prescribed Form 45-106F4 Risk Acknowledgement before subscribing.
DISCLOSURES & DISCLAIMERS
CLIENT CONTENT: Carboncredits.com is not responsible for any content hosted on ARMR Sciences’ sites; it is ARMR Sciences’ responsibility to ensure compliance with applicable laws.
NOT INVESTMENT ADVICE: Content is for educational, informational, and advertising purposes only and should NOT be construed as securities-related offers or solicitations. All content should be considered promotional and subject to disclosed conflicts of interest.
Do NOT rely on this as personalized investment advice. Do your own due diligence.
Carboncredits.com strongly recommends you consult a licensed or registered professional before making any investment decision.
REGULATORY STATUS: Neither Carboncredits.com nor any of its owners or employees is registered as a securities broker-dealer, broker, investment advisor, or IA representative with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, any state securities regulatory authority, or any self-regulatory organization.
CONTENT & COMPENSATION DISCLOSURE: Carboncredits.com has received compensation of thirty thousand dollars from ARMR Sciences for this sponsored content. You should assume we receive compensation as indicated for any purchases through links in this email via affiliate relationships, direct/indirect payments from companies or third parties who may own stock in or have other interests in promoted companies. We may purchase, sell, or hold long or short positions without notice in securities mentioned in this communication.
RESULTS NOT TYPICAL: Past performance and results are unverified and NOT indicative of future results. Results presented are NOT guaranteed as TYPICAL. Market conditions and individual circumstances vary significantly. Actual results will vary widely. Investing in securities is speculative and carries high risk; you may lose some, all, or possibly more than your original investment.
HIGH-RISK: Securities discussed may be highly speculative investments subject to extreme volatility, limited liquidity, and potential total loss. The Securities are suitable only for persons who can afford to lose their entire investment. Furthermore, investors must understand that such investment could be illiquid for an indefinite period of time. No public market currently exists for the securities, and if a public market develops, it may not continue.
DISCLAIMERS & CAUTIONARY STATEMENT: Certain statements in this presentation (the “Presentation”) may be deemed to be “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the 1933 Securities Act and Section 21E of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are intended to be covered by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as ”should,” ”may,” ”intends,” ”anticipates,” ”believes,” ”estimates,” ”projects,” ”forecasts,” ”expects,” ”plans,” and ”proposes.” Forward-looking statements, which are based on the current plans, forecasts and expectations of management of ARMR Sciences Inc. (the “Company” or “ARMR Sciences”), are inherently less reliable than historical information. Forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, including events and circumstances that may be outside our control.
Although management believes that the expectations reflected in these forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, there are a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from such forward-looking statements. Risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially include, without limitation, those risks identified in the Private Placement Memorandum. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of the document in which they are contained, and ARMR Sciences Inc. does not undertake any duty to update any forward-looking statements except as may be required by law.
Any forward-looking financial forecasts contained in this Presentation are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ materially. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such forecasts. No assurances can be given that the future results indicated, whether expressed or implied, will be achieved. While sometimes presented with numerical specificity, all such forecasts are based upon a variety of assumptions that may not be realized, and which are highly variable. Because of the number and range of the assumptions underlying any such forecasts, many of which are subject to significant uncertainties and contingencies that are beyond the reasonable control of the issuing company, many of the assumptions inevitably will not materialize and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur subsequent to the date of any financial forecast.
ARMR Sciences Inc. takes no responsibility for any forecasts contained within the Presentation. None of the information contained in any offering materials should be regarded as a representation by ARMR Sciences Inc. The Company’s forecasts have not been prepared with a view toward public disclosure or compliance with the guidelines of the SEC, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants or the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. Independent public accountants have not examined nor compiled any forecasts and have not expressed an opinion or assurance with respect to the figures.
This Presentation also contains estimates and other statistical data made by independent parties and by management relating to market size and other data about our industry. This data involves a number of assumptions and limitations, and you are cautioned not to give undue weight to such estimates.
ARMR Sciences Inc. is currently undertaking a private placement offering of Offered Shares pursuant to Section 4(a)(2) of the 1933 Act and/or Rule 506(c) of Regulation D promulgated thereunder. Investors should consider the investment objectives, risks, and investment time horizon of the Company carefully before investing. The private placement memorandum relating to the offering of Securities will contain this and other information concerning the Company, including risk factors, which should be read carefully before investing.
The Securities are being offered and sold in reliance on exemptions from registration under the 1933 Act. In accordance therewith, you should be aware that (i) the Securities may be sold only to “accredited investors,” as defined in Rule 501 of Regulation D; (ii) the Securities will only be offered in reliance on an exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act and will not be required to comply with specific disclosure requirements that apply to registration under the Securities Act; (iii) the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) will not pass upon the merits of or give its approval to the terms of the Securities or the offering, or the accuracy or completeness of any offering materials; (iv) the Securities will be subject to legal restrictions on transfer and resale and investors should not assume they will be able to resell their securities; and (v) investing in these Securities involves a high degree of risk, and investors should be able to bear the loss of their entire investment. Furthermore, investors must understand that such investment could be illiquid for an indefinite period of time.
The Company is “Testing the Waters” under Regulation A under the Securities Act of 1933. The Company is not under any obligation to make an offering under Regulation A. No money or other consideration is being solicited in connection with the information provided, and if sent in response, will not be accepted. No offer to buy the securities can be accepted and no part of the purchase price can be received until an offering statement on Form 1-A has been filed and until the offering statement is qualified pursuant to Regulation A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and any such offer may be withdrawn or revoked, without obligation or commitment of any kind, at any time before notice of its acceptance given after the qualification date.
The securities offered using Regulation A are highly speculative and involve significant risks. The investment is suitable only for persons who can afford to lose their entire investment. Furthermore, investors must understand that such investment could be illiquid for an indefinite period of time. No public market currently exists for the securities, and if a public market develops following the offering, it may not continue. The Company intends to list its securities on a national exchange and doing so entails significant ongoing corporate obligations including but not limited to disclosure, filing and notification requirements, as well compliance with applicable continued quantitative and qualitative listing standards.
The post AI and Biodefense – Working to Stay Ahead of Synthetic Drug Threats appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Insetting program design starts with your supplier map. The carbon claim comes much later.
Consider a coffee procurement team that funds a farm intervention before checking its sourcing data. The supplier aggregates coffee lots from several regions. The buyer lacks farm-level traceability. Another purchaser expects to report the same outcome. A more attractive project brochure solves none of these problems.
If the distinction between a value-chain intervention and a purchased credit is still open, read CCC’s Insetting vs Offsetting guide before you set the brief.
Insetting program design begins with the purchasing relationship and works outward. You need to decide 1) where an intervention belongs, 2) what business problem it addresses, 3) who pays for it, 4) how results will be measured, and 5) what the evidence will let you say about them. This five-step playbook turns that sequence into a procurement plan.
Step 1: Insetting program design starts with supplier mapping
Start with the commodities that matter most to your Scope 3 inventory and sourcing continuity. Ask finance for spend by supplier, sustainability for the emissions baseline, and category managers for origin and volume records. Then identify which suppliers can trace material to a jurisdiction, sourcing region, producer group, or individual land-management unit.
The level of traceability affects what you can account for. Under the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, the spatial boundary for purchased land-based products depends on the traceability associated with each volume. Farm-specific factors or removals require physical traceability through an acceptable chain-of-custody model. A contract with a tier-one trader, by itself, does not establish a link to the farms behind its deliveries.[1]
Build a first-pass table with five columns: commodity and annual volume; supplier and origin; current traceability level; land-use and production risks; and the business owner who can change the purchasing terms. Mark missing data plainly. A blank cell is cheaper to fix before a program starts than after a claim is drafted.
If your company sets an SBTi Forest, Land and Agriculture target (FLAG), keep its land-related target boundary separate from energy and industry emissions. The current FLAG guidance also requires relevant companies to assess primary deforestation-linked commodities in their value chains.[2]
Step 2: Choose a commodity and jurisdiction for a pilot
Select one supply corridor where the sourcing connection can be established and procurement has a reason to stay. A useful pilot has repeat purchases, suppliers willing to share records, an intervention matched to a diagnosed problem, and a defined plan to measure the result. Carbon potential alone is a poor selection rule if the supplier cannot deliver the crop your business needs.
Compare candidate regions on land-use risk, supplier concentration, local rights and tenure, the availability of baseline data, and exposure to drought, erosion, or forest conversion. Check the relevant legal requirements separately. A nature project does not satisfy a due-diligence obligation merely because it has a carbon method attached.
Consider a coffee buyer sourcing from two districts. In the first, producer-group records identify the farms, while recent dry seasons have increased rejected green coffee lots. In the second, deliveries pass through several intermediaries and farm origins are unknown. Pilot shade management in the first district, with local agronomic advice and quality checks built into the plan. The buyer can trace purchases there and test the intervention against a defined sourcing problem.
Use a short decision memo to record why the selected corridor beats the alternatives, what remains uncertain, and what would stop the pilot. That memo is the first control against a project drifting toward whatever happens to photograph well.
Step 3: Design the supplier engagement and commercial model
The intervention needs an owner on each side of the contract. Decide who supplies planting material or training, who maintains the practice, who bears the cost if a harvest disappoints, and how long the buyer expects to purchase from participating suppliers. Where smallholders participate, budget cash flow and technical support for practices that offer a later return.
Put these terms in a supplier agreement or pilot addendum. It should cover eligible farms and volumes, consent to data collection, access for monitoring, any land or carbon rights that matter, benefit sharing, and what happens if the purchasing relationship ends. Ask local counsel and producer representatives to review the arrangement. The Accountability Framework is a useful reference for supply-chain work involving forests, ecosystems, and human rights.[3]
Avoid assigning an automatic carbon benefit to the buyer. The contract should say which party has the right to report each outcome, how overlapping claims will be checked, and how any issued credits will be handled. A reduction reported in a buyer’s inventory cannot simply be sold for someone else’s offset claim without an accounting review. SBTi FLAG guidance excludes purchased credits used as offsets from near-term FLAG target achievement.[2]
Set commercial measures beside environmental ones: delivered volume, rejection rate, supplier retention, and procurement cost. They tell you whether the program works as a supply-chain investment, even if carbon accounting takes longer to resolve.
Step 4: Build monitoring, reporting, and verification before rollout
Agree on the baseline and data flow before paying for a full rollout. Identify the land units or sourcing regions in scope, the practices that change, the records suppliers already keep, and the additional measurements the program requires. Decide which data can come from field visits, transaction records, or remote sensing, and who checks each source.
For carbon, separate three questions. Did the practice happen? Did emissions or removals change under an applicable method? Can the buyer attribute a defensible share to its purchased goods without double counting? The GHG Protocol’s 2026 guidance includes dedicated chapters on spatial boundaries, data and methods, evaluating actions, credited outcomes, and assurance.[1] These are distinct jobs. A photograph of a planted tree answers only part of the first.
CCC’s MRV and Additionality article explains the separate evidence questions a project reviewer will ask.
Create an evidence file for every reporting period: dated supplier and farm records, purchase volumes, methods and emission factors, uncertainty, quality checks, and changes from the baseline. Specify who can challenge the data and how corrections are recorded. If a project also seeks credit certification, keep project accounting and corporate inventory accounting separate. The GHG Protocol says its land standard focuses on entity-level inventories and does not set the rules for credit certification.[4]
Start with the minimum viable measurement design that can survive review. Add complexity when the pilot tells you which data actually changes a decision.
Step 5: Decide what can be reported and claimed
Insetting program design needs reporting rules before the marketing copy. Procurement, sustainability, finance, and legal should agree on four distinct outputs: operational performance; observed land or nature outcomes; inventory effects, if the accounting criteria are met; and any separately issued credits. One dashboard can display them, but they should not share a single unqualified headline.
SBTi FLAG guidance allows certain land-based removals within a company’s operations or supply chain to contribute to FLAG pathways, subject to criteria including permanence, traceability, data quality, and allocation. It does not allow purchased offsets to meet near-term FLAG targets.[2] Eligibility therefore depends on evidence and the applicable target rules, not on calling an activity “insetting.”
Draft a claims register. For each proposed sentence, record the period, boundary, data owner, calculation method, reviewer, and whether the result is measured, estimated, or still a goal. If the evidence supports only “we funded a pilot with 200 farms,” say that. Do not turn a funding fact into a verified emissions reduction.
What good looks like by year three
Treat year three as a review point, not a promised payback date. A mature pilot should have mapped participating supply volumes, a stable supplier agreement, a repeatable data collection process, and a comparison of commercial and environmental results against the baseline. It should also have a documented answer for outcomes that cannot be included in the buyer’s inventory.
Scale only where the pilot improves a sourcing decision and the evidence can follow the product. If neither condition holds, redesign the intervention or change the corridor. A disciplined program can conclude that a site is unsuitable. That is useful procurement intelligence.
Discuss your insetting program with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital designs nature-based supply chain investments around sourcing needs and measurable sustainability outcomes. Schedule a consultation with our carbon and sustainability experts to map your tier-one supplier network, FLAG exposure, and first pilot decision.
Sources
[1] GHG Protocol, Land Sector and Removals Standard, version 1.1, and companion Guidance, June 2026: https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-standard ; https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-guidance
[2] Science Based Targets initiative, Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, especially pp. 16–17, 37, and 41: https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/SBTiFLAGGuidance.pdf
[3] Accountability Framework initiative, Accountability Framework and guidance for companies: https://accountability-framework.org/
[4] GHG Protocol, Frequently Asked Questions: Land Sector and Removals Standard, questions 10 and 18: https://ghgprotocol.org/blog/frequently-asked-questions-land-sector-and-removals-lsr-standard
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
