Carbon removal is moving beyond pilot projects. A new agreement between JPMorgan Chase and Charm Industrial shows how the sector is entering a new phase. The deal combines carbon removal credit purchases with financing support, helping expand future supply while reducing project risk.
Under the agreement, JPMorgan will purchase 61,500 metric tons of carbon removal credits from Charm Industrial. The bank will also provide financing support to help the company grow its operations.
The deal highlights a broader trend. Large financial institutions are starting to view carbon removal not only as a climate tool but also as a market with long-term growth potential.
As net-zero deadlines approach, demand for high-quality carbon removal credits is rising. Companies are looking for solutions that deliver measurable climate benefits and long-term carbon storage.
Taylor Wright, Head of Operational Sustainability at JPMorganChase, remarked:
“Our initial purchase with Charm marked an important step as we expanded our ambition in carbon removal and refined how we assess quality and deliver real impact across our portfolio. This new purchase—bringing our total to 90,000 tons—together with financial support from our business, reflects how our portfolio has matured over time and Charm’s track record of delivering measurable, durable outcomes across its projects.”
Carbon Removal Becomes a Bigger Part of Net Zero
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is different from traditional carbon offsets. Many offsets focus on avoiding emissions. Carbon removal takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and stores it for the long term.
Most climate experts agree that emissions cuts alone will not be enough to meet global climate goals. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most pathways that limit warming to 1.5°C require large-scale carbon removal.
Today, the novel technological market remains small. Global demand for these engineered carbon removals is still below 10 million metric tons per year, according to CDR.fyi.
However, the State of Carbon Dioxide Removal Report shows that total global removals—mostly from forestry—already sit at 2.2 billion tons. Looking forward, IPCC climate pathways project that total global demand will need to reach billions of tons annually by mid-century to meet net-zero targets.
That growth is expected to come from sectors such as aviation, steel, cement, and shipping. These industries are difficult to fully decarbonize and will likely need carbon removal to address remaining emissions. Thus, investors and financial institutions are paying closer attention to the sector.
Inside JPMorgan’s Growing Climate Strategy
The agreement also fits JPMorgan’s broader climate strategy. The bank has committed to aligning key parts of its financing portfolio with net-zero emissions by 2050. It has also set emissions reduction targets across sectors including power generation, oil and gas, aviation, shipping, and automotive manufacturing.
In addition, JPMorgan has pledged to finance and facilitate more than $2.5 trillion toward sustainable development initiatives by 2030. That includes $1 trillion dedicated to climate action and green solutions. Carbon removal is becoming an important part of those efforts.
Many companies can reduce most of their emissions through clean energy, efficiency improvements, and new technologies. However, some emissions are likely to remain. Carbon removal is expected to help address these residual emissions.
The structure of the JPMorgan-Charm deal is also notable. Instead of only purchasing carbon credits, the bank is helping support future production capacity. This approach gives developers access to capital while helping buyers secure future carbon removal supply.
Peter Reinhardt, CEO and Co-Founder of Charm Industrial, stated:
“JPMorganChase is helping build the infrastructure for a permanent carbon removal industry. Having a sophisticated, mission-aligned financial institution come back for a second, larger purchase while also stepping up with growth capital is exactly the kind of validation that tells us we’re on the right path.”
Charm’s Way: Turning Farm Waste Into Permanent Carbon Storage
Charm Industrial uses a process known as biomass carbon removal and storage. The company collects agricultural waste, including crop residues that would otherwise decompose or be burned. It converts this material into a carbon-rich bio-oil through a process called fast pyrolysis.
The bio-oil is then injected deep underground for long-term storage. This method is designed to keep carbon locked away for hundreds or even thousands of years.
One advantage is that the process can use existing energy infrastructure. Storage wells, transportation systems, and other equipment already used in the energy sector can often be adapted for carbon storage.
Charm has become one of the leading companies in the sector. The company says it has already delivered more than 150,000 metric tons of carbon removal to customers, making it one of the world’s largest suppliers of durable carbon removal credits.
While the technology continues to develop, many experts see biomass carbon removal as one of the more mature engineered carbon removal pathways available today.
The Carbon Removal Supply Crunch Is Emerging
Corporate demand for carbon removal continues to increase. Technology companies have been among the biggest buyers. Many have net-zero goals and are looking for ways to address emissions that cannot be eliminated through renewable energy or operational improvements.
Programs such as Frontier have also helped accelerate the market. The initiative, backed by major technology companies, commits funding to help scale carbon removal technologies.
Yet, supply remains limited. Novel or engineered solutions contribute only 0.1%, roughly 2.2 million metric tons, to the physical supply.
Analysts at McKinsey estimate global demand for carbon removals could reach 100 million metric tons per year by 2030 and grow 100-fold by 2050. Current delivery volumes are only a small fraction of that level. CDR.fyi data shows only 1.5 million metric tons were delievered as of June 2026.
This gap between supply and demand is pushing buyers to sign long-term agreements years before credits are delivered. That trend is creating new opportunities for financing and investment.
Why Capital Could Unlock the Next Wave of Growth
One of the most important aspects of the JPMorgan-Charm agreement is the financing component.
Carbon removal projects often need large upfront investments. Companies must build infrastructure, secure storage sites, and establish monitoring systems before generating significant revenue.
New financing models are helping address this challenge. These include:
- Long-term carbon removal purchase agreements,
- Advance market commitments,
- Project financing backed by future credit deliveries, and
- Blended finance structures that combine different sources of capital.
The approach resembles the early growth of renewable energy. Long-term power purchase agreements helped wind and solar developers secure financing and expand rapidly.
Many industry observers believe carbon removal could follow a similar path. The involvement of a major institution like JPMorgan suggests the market is beginning to mature.
From Climate Niche to Investable Market
The JPMorgan-Charm Industrial agreement shows how climate finance is evolving. Companies are no longer focused only on buying carbon credits. Increasingly, they are investing in the systems needed to produce those credits at scale.
Most net-zero pathways still require large amounts of carbon removal to balance emissions from hard-to-abate industries. The challenge now is building enough capacity to meet future demand.
Technology is advancing. Corporate demand is growing. Financing is becoming more available. Together, these trends are helping move carbon removal from a niche climate solution toward a larger and more established market.
The post JPMorgan Backs Carbon Removal Growth With New Charm Industrial Deal 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