Carbon credits are increasingly essential for investors and businesses aiming to reduce emissions. According to Abatable’s latest report, the voluntary carbon market (VCM) is growing rapidly, attracting $16.3 billion in funding in 2024.
This is 18 times higher than the total value of credit retirements, highlighting a shift toward long-term commitments rather than short-term carbon offset purchases. Compared to previous years, this represents a significant rise, underscoring the increasing role of carbon markets in corporate sustainability strategies.
Governments, companies, and investors are under pressure to integrate climate action into their operations. The European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which places a tariff on carbon-intensive imports, is expected to drive higher demand for trusted carbon credits.
As regulations evolve globally, businesses that adopt high-quality carbon credits early may gain a competitive advantage. Let’s learn why and the key trends shaping the market.
Net Zero’s Secret Weapon: Why Corporations are Doubling Down on Carbon Credits
Companies are the biggest buyers of carbon credits, using them to compensate for emissions they cannot yet eliminate. Many of these emissions fall under Scope 3 emissions, which come from supply chains, transportation, and other indirect sources. Addressing Scope 3 emissions is one of the most difficult challenges for businesses pursuing net-zero goals, making carbon credits a crucial tool.
Among the sectors leading this shift, the aviation industry is significantly increasing its reliance on carbon credits. The Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) could add demand for 135–182 million tons of credits by 2026. This is equal to 28-37% of the current voluntary market retirements.
This reflects airlines’ efforts to comply with stricter environmental standards while maintaining operations.
Major corporations are also making significant commitments. Microsoft has pledged to buy millions of tons of carbon removal credits as part of its long-term net-zero plan. Other companies, such as Google, Delta Air Lines, and Amazon, are investing in carbon credits to offset emissions from operations and supply chains. Amazon, for instance, is funding large-scale forest conservation projects to balance its growing carbon footprint.
Financial institutions are emerging as key players in the carbon market. Many banks and investment funds are creating carbon credit portfolios, viewing them as a new asset class with long-term growth potential.
According to Abatable’s report, institutional investors focusing on sustainability and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investments are expected to increase their participation in the market.
The Shift to Carbon Removals
A major trend in 2024 is the increasing investment in carbon removal projects rather than avoidance-based credits. Investors prefer projects that remove CO₂ from the air, such as direct air capture (DAC) and afforestation, because they provide measurable and permanent carbon reductions.
Avoidance credits, such as forest conservation (REDD+), have faced pricing challenges. Older REDD+ credits have sold for lower prices, from $6.1 to $3.5 per ton due to concerns about their reliability.
However, newer REDD+ projects aligned with high-integrity standards are in higher demand. Investors are prioritizing credits that ensure long-term carbon storage rather than those that merely prevent emissions from increasing.
Another growing area is blue carbon credits, which come from coastal and marine ecosystems such as mangroves and seagrass. These environments store carbon at much higher rates than terrestrial forests and provide additional benefits like protecting biodiversity and supporting local communities.
For example, projects in Indonesia and Kenya are restoring degraded mangroves to generate blue carbon credits. Investors are increasingly interested in these projects due to their dual benefits of carbon sequestration and ecosystem restoration.
Ensuring Quality and Trust in the Market
The credibility of carbon credits is critical for their success. New international standards, such as the Core Carbon Principles (CCPs) from the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (IC-VCM), are improving market transparency.
- In 2024, 50% of all retired credits met high-quality standards, up from 29% in 2021, demonstrating a move toward more trustworthy offsets.
CORSIA-eligible credits are also gaining popularity, particularly among airlines looking to meet strict environmental regulations. As more industries adopt these high-quality standards, the voluntary carbon market is expected to become more reliable and impactful.
Technology is playing a key role in improving market integrity. Blockchain-based carbon credit tracking and digital measurement, reporting, and verification (dMRV) tools are reducing the risks of fraud and double counting. These innovations allow real-time tracking of carbon credits, giving investors greater confidence in their authenticity and impact.
What’s Next for Carbon Pricing?
Despite strong demand, carbon credit prices fell in 2024 due to an oversupply of older credits. However, removal credits, especially for afforestation and biochar, remained valuable. Biochar credits, for instance, traded between $200 and $1,200 per ton, reflecting their high demand and limited supply.
Experts predict that high-quality credits will continue to trade at premium prices, while lower-quality credits may struggle to find buyers.
Abatable’s report predicts growth in the voluntary carbon market. This growth is fueled by corporate sustainability goals and compliance tools such as CBAM and CORSIA. Stricter regulations are coming. Businesses investing in reliable, high-integrity credits will better meet their sustainability goals. This will help them keep public trust.
Financial tools for carbon credits are also evolving. Forward contracts, pre-financing agreements, and credit insurance are making investments in carbon credits more secure. These financial products help project developers raise capital and provide investors with more certainty about future returns.
Forward price curves for carbon credits remain higher than today’s spot market prices, per Abatable report:
- REDD+ and Cookstove Credits: Expected to be issued under improved methodologies, these credits are priced between $11-$15 per tonne in forward markets, compared to $3-$6 per tonne in the spot market.
- Other Credit Types: Future vintages (2025-2029) for wetlands, improved forest management, afforestation, and reforestation projects are priced above $20 per tonne, reflecting a premium over current spot prices.
- Stable Pricing: Forward price curves suggest modest, incremental price increases over time, indicating long-term stability in the carbon credit market.
The Future of Carbon Investing
The voluntary carbon market is undergoing rapid change, with investment playing a central role in shaping its future. Companies and investors are focusing on high-quality carbon removal projects, while new standards and technologies are improving market transparency.
As the market evolves, investors may find opportunities in emerging sectors, particularly those prioritizing projects producing high-integrity carbon removal credits. Blue carbon, direct air capture, and afforestation are poised to attract more funding in the coming years.
The post Carbon Credits Surge: $16B Fuels 2024’s Race for High-Quality Offsets appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 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”
-
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”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
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