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.
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
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.
-
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