Indigo Carbon announced it has now passed 2 million metric tons of verified climate impact from U.S. croplands. The company reached the milestone after issuing its fifth U.S. “carbon crop.” The new issuance includes 1.1 million independently verified carbon credits issued through the Climate Action Reserve (CAR).
Indigo describes the milestone in its announcement as a sign that soil-based carbon programs can scale. It also points to rising corporate demand for credits that meet stricter quality rules.
Indigo’s latest issuance is important because it is linked to a major registry method that now carries an additional integrity label. Max DuBuisson, Head of Impact & Integrity, Indigo, remarked:
“Indigo continues to set the standard for high-integrity soil carbon removals that corporate buyers can trust. Soil carbon is uniquely positioned to scale as a climate solution because it captures and stores carbon while also improving water conservation and crop resilience. By combining world-class science and technology with farmer-driven practice change, we’re proving that agricultural soil carbon is an immediate, durable, high-integrity solution capable of helping global companies meet their climate commitments.”
Inside the 1.1M Credit Issuance and CCP Label
Indigo says its fifth issuance includes 1.1 million carbon credits verified and issued through CAR. These credits come from Indigo’s U.S. soil carbon project, listed on the Climate Action Reserve under the Soil Enrichment Protocol (SEP) Version 1.1.
CAR’s SEP is designed to quantify and verify farm practices that increase soil carbon and reduce net emissions. It covers changes in soil carbon storage and also includes reductions in certain greenhouse gases tied to farm management.
CAR’s SEP Version 1.1 has the ICVCM Core Carbon Principles (CCP) label. This means the method meets the standards set by the CCP framework.
Indigo’s disclosures also describe long-term monitoring rules. The company reports that its U.S. project includes 100 years of project-level monitoring after credit issuance, in line with CAR requirements. This mix of independent verification, registry issuance, and long monitoring periods is central to the case Indigo makes for credit quality.
Breaking Down the 2 Million Ton Milestone
Indigo says its total verified impact now exceeds 2 million metric tons of carbon removals and reductions across U.S. croplands.
In carbon markets, one credit equals one metric ton of CO₂ equivalent. Indigo’s latest issuance is very large by soil carbon standards. It also builds on earlier “carbon crop” issuances.
Indigo’s project disclosures include a quantified impact figure for its U.S. project. The company reports 927,367 tCO₂e reduced or removed through Dec. 31, 2023, for the project listed as CAR1459.
Indigo announced it has saved 118 billion gallons of water. It has also paid farmers $40 million through its programs so far. These points matter because many buyers now look beyond carbon totals. They also want evidence of farmer payments, monitoring rules, and co-benefits like water conservation.
Corporate Demand Shifts Toward Verified Removals
One reason soil carbon is getting more attention is the growing demand from buyers for removals. Many companies now focus more on carbon removal credits, not only avoidance credits.
Indigo’s largest recent buyer example is Microsoft. In January 2026, the carbon ag company announced a 12-year agreement under which Microsoft will purchase 2.85 million soil carbon removal credits from them.
- The soil carbon producer said this is Microsoft’s third transaction with the company, following purchases of 40,000 tonnes in 2024 and 60,000 tonnes in 2025.
The tech giant’s purchases show how corporate buyers may use long-term offtake deals to secure future supply of credits. This matters for soil carbon programs because credits are typically generated over multiple years. And they also depend on practice changes and verification cycles.
Indigo also says its program works across eight million acres, which signals how it is trying to scale participation across U.S. farms.
Soil Carbon Credits: Market Trends and Forecast
Soil carbon credits are gaining attention as buyers shift toward higher-quality credits and clearer verification rules. Ecosystem Marketplace reports that the voluntary carbon market is entering a new phase. This phase emphasizes integrity, even though trading activity has slowed down.
In its 2025 market update, Ecosystem Marketplace noted a 25% drop in transaction volumes. This decline shows lower liquidity as buyers are becoming more selective.
At the same time, demand for higher-quality credits is rising. Sylvera’s State of Carbon Credits 2025 reported that retirements dropped to 168 million credits in 2025, a 4.5% decrease.
Still, the market value climbed to US$1.04 billion due to rising prices. It also found that higher-rated credits (BBB+) made up 31% of retirements, and traded at higher average prices than lower-rated supply.
For soil carbon, buyers are also watching methodology quality. The ICVCM has approved two sustainable agriculture methods as CCP-approved. These are the Climate Action Reserve’s Soil Enrichment Protocol v1.1 and Verra’s VM0042. This can support stronger buyer confidence and may increase demand for soil credits that meet CCP rules.
Looking ahead, Sylvera projects compliance-linked demand will keep growing and could exceed voluntary demand by 2027. That trend may favor credits with stronger verification and compliance alignment, including higher-integrity soil carbon credits. However, integrity issues still occur, and this is where Indigo comes in.
Tackling Permanence and MRV Head-On
Soil carbon credits face a key challenge: carbon stored in soil can be reversed. A drought, land use change, or a shift in farm practices can reduce stored carbon.
This is why monitoring and reversal rules matter. CAR’s protocol is built to quantify, monitor, report, and verify practices that increase soil carbon storage.
Indigo’s project disclosure notes that projects are monitored for 100 years after they are issued. This shows the durability rules tied to their method and registry approach.
The company also positions its program as “outcome-based,” meaning it pays for verified carbon outcomes rather than paying only for adopting a practice. This messaging is designed to reassure buyers that credits are not only modeled. It stresses verification and the registry process.
A Scale Test for High-Integrity Soil Carbon
Indigo’s fifth issuance lands at a time when voluntary carbon markets are placing more weight on integrity labels and independent verification.
Two parts stand out:
- First, volume. An issuance of 1.1 million credits through a registry is large for an agricultural soil carbon program.
- Second, method approval. CAR’s SEP Version 1.1 carries the ICVCM CCP label, which is meant to signal alignment with a global integrity benchmark.
That combination may make it easier for corporate buyers to justify purchases internally. Many companies now face stronger scrutiny from auditors, regulators, investors, and civil society groups.
At the same time, more supply does not automatically mean market confidence rises. Buyers still assess risks such as permanence, additionality, and measurement uncertainty.
Even so, the milestone shows how fast some parts of the removals market are trying to scale. Large buyers are also helping drive this shift through multi-year offtake deals, like the Microsoft agreement for 2.85 million credits.
For Indigo, the new issuance supports its claim that soil carbon is moving from small pilot volumes toward larger, repeatable issuances. For the market, it adds another real-world data point: a major soil carbon program has now completed five issuance cycles and passed 2 million metric tons of verified climate impact.
The post Indigo Carbon Surpasses 2 Million Soil Carbon Credits in Landmark 1.1 Million Issuance 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.
-
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 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
-
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