The first major update of CTC’s carbon-tax model since 2021 is now in the books, calibrated to 2023 emissions and the putative emissions-reducing provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act. One result stands out: Without federal legislation mandating a robust national carbon tax, the U.S. won’t come close to achieving the hoped-for 50% decline in carbon emissions (from 2005 levels) in the reasonably foreseeable future.
A $20/$15 carbon tax could halve carbon emissions by 2035
A national carbon tax starting next year at $20/ton and rising annually by $15/ton will cut U.S. CO2 emissions in half from 2005 levels in 2035. To halve emissions by 2030 requires $25/ton for both the starting price and the annual rises.
A national carbon price that took effect in 2025 at $20 per (short) ton and rose by $15 per ton each year would, by 2035, halve U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion: from 6,120 million metric tons (“tonnes”) in 2005, the standard baseline year, to an estimated 3,068 million tonnes in 2035, according to CTC’s model (Excel spreadsheet, 2 MB). That computes to a 50% reduction (rounded from 49.9%).
[NB: The site hosting the Excel file is temporarily down, please check back soon.]
But without a national carbon price, our model projects U.S. emissions in 2035 of 4,606 million tonnes. That would be just 25% below 2005 emissions, putting the country only halfway to the 50%-reduction goal in 2035. And even that piddling progress entails pushing back the customary 2030 target for halving U.S. emissions to 2035, a 5-year delay.
To be fair, the “halving by 2030” goal is generally construed to encompass not just carbon dioxide but also methane, which is regarded as lower-hanging greenhouse-gas fruit on account of its relative concentration in more easily regulatable oil and gas extraction and transport. This January methane began to be subjected to emissions pricing, through a provision of the Inflation Reduction Act mandating that emissions above a certain threshold be taxed at a rate of $900 per tonne.
But even assuming an optimistic three-fourths reduction in methane and other non-carbon GHG’s, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel-burning would have to fall by 44% from 2005 to achieve an overall 50% reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Without a national carbon price, the projected CO2 reduction from 2005 is just 17% in 2030 and, as noted, only 25% in 2035, according to CTC’s model.
Halving carbon emissions by 2030 requires a more heroic carbon tax, one starting at $25/ton in 2025 and rising annually by that amount
We also ran the CTC model to determine the carbon price level and trajectory required to halve U.S. 2005 carbon emissions by 2030 rather than 2035. Talk about a tall order! Here’s what the requisite carbon tax would look like:
- The carbon tax would take effect in 2025 (same as in the 2035 scenario).
- The initial price would be $25 per ton of CO2 rather than $20.
- The annual price rise would be the same $25/ton, rather than just $15/ton in the 2035 scenario. That means reaching triple digits in the tax’s fourth year.
- And — this is a bit technical — we’re relaxed the model assumption of the maximum annual tax rise to which the U.S. economy can fully react, from $20/ton previously to $25/ton.
It goes without saying that the present-day American political system isn’t equipped to enact and implement such an “heroic” (an adjective we prefer to “draconian”) carbon tax.
The still-lonely radical center
Prominent voices calling for carbon taxes beyond token amounts (e.g., $10 or $20 per ton with little or no increases) are precious few, not just in absolute terms but relative to the pre-2010 period in which climate concern was widespread and neither the left nor the right had been consumed by their respective demonizations: carbon pricing (on the left) or climate concern of any sort (on the right).
Indeed, here at Carbon Tax Center, we’ve traded in our web pages that previously celebrated carbon tax supporters for pages like Carbon Pricing and Environmental Justice, Progressives and Carbon Pricing, and Conservatives, all of them grouped under a heading of “Politics.” Each is essentially a litany of grievances and rejections of carbon pricing and/or climate action, period.
This chart, from CTC’s newly updated carbon tax model, shows the futility of looking for a single invention or regulation or subsidy to slash U.S. emissions. Fossil fuels suffuse our economy, making robust carbon pricing essential to achieving big across-the-board cuts.
This isn’t polarization, it’s a simultaneous disavowal by both ends of the political spectrum of the lone plausible transformational climate-preserving policy measure. (Rather than “ends” I should say “sides” of the spectrum, given that anti-pricing has spilled over from the confines of the respective extremes and now appears to occupy most of the two sides.)
Omens
Consider these two minor but telling signposts from the past week.
One was a NY Times “Sunday Review” guest essay last weekend, I’m a Young Conservative, and I Want My Party to Lead the Fight Against Climate Change, by one Benji Backer, founder-director of the American Conservation Coalition.
Alas, the essay was cut from the same generic cloth as other conservative calls to climate action. Here’s an excerpt:
We cannot address climate change or solve any other environmental issue without the buy-in and leadership of conservative America. And there are clear opportunities for climate action that conservatives can champion without sacrificing core values, from sustainable agriculture to nuclear energy and the onshoring of clean energy production.
Ho-hum. But, most strikingly, zero mention of carbon pricing — not even a nod to the revenue-neutral type such as fee-and-dividend that circumvents right-wing canards about government overreach by “dividending” the carbon revenues to households, thus correcting the market failure driving carbon emissions without “growing the government.”
So much for the right wing. On the left, I had the frustrating experience of meeting a director of an iconic American environmental organization at a public event and bonding with him over our shared dismay at the organization’s post-2016 submission to anti-carbon-pricing rhetoric . . . only to be ghosted when I tried to arrange a meet-up to possibly grow our newfound patch of common ground.
So much for dialogue in service of effective climate policy.
Can’t we bring U.S. emissions down sharply without carbon pricing?
Alas, no. U.S. emission progress perennially falls short of even modest hopes. Almost from the moment the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act — which CTC supported from the git-go — was enacted into law, it has bumped up against a calamity of transmission bottlenecks, supply-chain woes and high interest rates. Even worse, perhaps, is the legal-regulatory “default” against building almost anything, even essential elements of the clean-energy infrastructure the IRA was intended to unlock
(Just after this post went up, I came across NY Times columnist Ezra Klein and Atlantic staff writer Jerusalem Demsas’s trenchant dive into the permitting-resistance phenomenon. Their analysis traces much of today’s disabling red tape and NIMBYism to Democratic Party empathy that prioritizes concerns about marginalized constituencies over the common good. Audio version here, transcript here.)
And let’s not overlook the emergent hellspawns of energy demand like AI processing, cyber-currency computing and ever-larger SUV’s and pickup trucks driven ever more miles, all of which threaten to pile on new carbon emissions almost as fast as incumbent emissions are removed.
As we’ve argued in post after post — just scroll through our monthly archives — these and other decarbonization derailments would be greatly alleviated by the robust carbon taxes we scoped above. Pricing the climate benefits of reduced fossil fuel use into the vast array of alternatives — from clean energy to all the ways of using less — will raise their profitability and, before long, bend society’s defaults toward replacing fossil fuels.
Our updated carbon-tax model shows that U.S. carbon emissions fell by 2.3% from 2022 to 2023. If there weren’t a climate emergency, that might qualify as a decent win. But in our real, overheating world, that rate doesn’t come close to the 4.1% compound annual decline needed to halve 2005 emissions by 2035, much less the 6.9% annual emissions shrinkage required to meet the same goal in 2030.
The insufficiency of even the best-intentioned policies and programs to meet necessary carbon targets without robust carbon taxing can’t be hidden indefinitely. The carbon tax reckoning awaits.
Carbon Footprint
Indigo Carbon Surpasses 2 Million Soil Carbon Credits in Landmark 1.1 Million Issuance
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.
Carbon Footprint
Meta, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft Dominate Clean Energy Deals as Global Buying Slips in 2025
For nearly a decade, global companies have been racing to buy clean energy from wind farms, solar parks, and other green power projects. But 2025 marked the first decline in this trend in almost ten years — a surprising shift that signals a changing landscape for corporate sustainability.
The latest report from BloombergNEF (BNEF) shows that corporate clean energy purchasing dropped about 10% in 2025, falling from roughly 62.2 gigawatts (GW) in 2024 to 55.9 GW last year.
Let’s break down why this happened, what it means, and how the market could evolve in the coming years.
Clean Energy Buying: The Big Picture
Corporate clean energy buying usually happens through power purchase agreements (PPAs). They are long-term contracts where companies agree to buy electricity directly from renewable energy projects, often wind or solar farms.
For years, this was one of the fastest-growing parts of the clean energy market. Companies like Google, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft drove most of the demand, helping build huge amounts of renewable capacity. But 2025 interrupted that streak.
Even though 55.9 GW is still one of the largest annual totals ever, the fact that it is lower than the year before shows a real shift in how companies approach renewable energy deals.
Why Corporate Clean Energy Buying Fell
There are several reasons why corporate clean energy buying slowed in 2025:
Corporate buyers are sensitive to electricity market rules and government policies. In many regions, uncertain policy environments made it harder to finalize long-term clean energy contracts. In the United States, for example, uncertainty about future clean energy incentives and carbon accounting standards caused many smaller corporations to hold off on signing new deals.
In some power markets, especially in parts of Europe, there were long hours of negative electricity prices. This happens when supply exceeds demand and power becomes so cheap that producers pay buyers to take it.
These price swings make standalone solar and wind contracts less attractive, especially for companies that want predictable, long-term value from their clean energy purchases.
Dominance of Big Tech
Another key point in the BloombergNEF findings is that the market is becoming more concentrated. As said before, four major tech firms, like Meta, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft, signed nearly half of all clean energy deals in 2025.
Meta and Amazon alone contracted over 20 GW of clean power last year, including deals that cover not just solar or wind, but also nuclear power — something unusual in past corporate PPA markets.
While this heavy concentration helps maintain volume, it also means that smaller companies are scaling back, which lowers the total number of buyers and contributes to the overall slowdown.
- READ MORE: Clean Energy Investment Hits Record $2.3T in 2025 Says BloombergNEF: What Leads the Surge?
Regional Differences: Where Things Slowed and Where They Didn’t
Corporate clean energy markets didn’t all move in the same direction last year. Bloomberg’s data shows clear regional patterns:
United States
The U.S. remained the largest single market for corporate clean energy deals, signing a record 29.5 GW of commitments. Much of this came from major technology companies looking to match their growing electricity needs with zero-carbon power sources.
Yet despite these high numbers, the number of unique corporate buyers in the U.S. dropped by about 51%, as many smaller firms pulled back from signing new PPAs.
Europe, Middle East & Africa (EMEA)
In the EMEA region, corporate PPAs fell around 13% in 2025, slipping back to levels closer to 2023. In Europe, in particular, rising negative prices and unstable policy conditions discouraged many new deals.
Asia Pacific
Asia had a mixed story. Some markets like Japan and Malaysia continued to attract corporate clean energy buyers, thanks to mature PPA markets and supportive regulations. But slower activity in countries like India and South Korea contributed to a drop in total volumes in the region.
The Rise of Hybrid and Firm Power Deals
One interesting trend that emerged in 2025 is that companies are looking beyond just wind and solar. Because of the limitations with standalone renewable deals, many buyers are now exploring hybrid power contracts that mix renewables with storage, or even nuclear and geothermal sources.
Hybrid deals like solar paired with battery storage give companies more reliable power and help manage price and supply risks. BloombergNEF tracked nearly 6 GW of these hybrid agreements in 2025, and expects this share to grow.
- According to a report by SEIA and Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, the United States added a record 28 gigawatts (GW) / 57 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of battery energy storage systems (BESS) in 2025. It reflected a 29% year-over-year increase.
Cheaper battery costs are part of this trend. Recent data shows that the cost of four-hour battery storage projects fell about 27% in 2025, reaching record lows. This makes storage-based renewable contracts more financially compelling.
Big Companies Still Push the Market
Even with the overall slowdown, corporate clean energy buying remains strong, especially among large technology firms.
In fact, while smaller companies took a step back, the major tech buyers helped keep total volumes near all-time highs. In other words, the market didn’t crash; it just shifted shape.
This becomes even clearer when we look at individual company progress. Microsoft reported recently that it now matches 100% of its global electricity use with renewable energy, an achievement that required decades of energy contracts and partnerships.
The Clean Energy Market Is Resetting, Not Retreating
The IEA projects that renewables will provide 36% of global electricity in 2026. This shows that the energy transition is moving forward, even if corporate clean energy purchases dipped in 2025. The slowdown does not signal failure. Instead, it reflects a market that is adapting as companies, technologies, policies, and economics evolve together.
Growth in corporate renewable deals is not always steady. A single year of lower volumes does not erase the gains of the past decade. Instead, it highlights the natural adjustments markets go through as strategies shift and conditions change.
In this transitioning phase, policy and regulation remain critical. Clear rules, incentives, and supportive frameworks encourage smaller companies to participate. Additionally, regions that provide stability, such as parts of the Asia Pacific, are seeing continued growth in corporate clean energy demand.
In conclusion, even with the dip in 2025, corporate renewable energy purchasing is far larger than it was ten years ago. The market is shifting rather than shrinking, and companies continue to find ways to power growth with clean energy. This slowdown may serve as a wake-up call, encouraging smarter, more flexible strategies that can sustain the energy transition for years to come.
- ALSO READ: Renewables 2025: How China, the US, Europe, and India Are Leading the World’s Clean Energy Growth
The post Meta, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft Dominate Clean Energy Deals as Global Buying Slips in 2025 appeared first on Carbon Credits.
“…Human subtlety… will never devise an invention more beautiful, more simple or more direct than does nature, because in her inventions nothing is lacking, and nothing is superfluous…”
The voluntary carbon market (VCM) has passed its inflection point. The volatility that characterized 2023 and 2024 has settled into a stark, data-driven reality: the market has bifurcated. As we look toward 2026, corporate leaders face two distinct markets. One is a liquid, low-price market of legacy credits facing increasing obsolescence. The other is a constrained, high-value market of high-quality assets. Specifically within Nature-Based Solutions (NBS), where demand is beginning to structurally outstrip supply.
For the capital-intensive, risk-averse organization, the strategy for 2026 cannot rely on the spot market procurement tactics of the past decade. The data from 2025 indicates that securing access to high-quality NBS is no longer just a corporate social responsibility objective; it is a balance sheet imperative driven by regulatory convergence and the tangible risk of stranded assets.
The End of Uniformity: The Quality Premium Widens
The most critical signal for your 2026 strategy is the decoupling of credit prices based on integrity.
In 2025, while total credit retirements marginally declined by 4.5% to 168 million tonnes, the primary market value actually grew by over 6% to $1.04 billion. This counter-intuitive dynamic—lower volume, higher value—proves that buyers are actively discarding low-quality inventory in favor of fewer, higher-quality assets.
This “flight to quality” has created a substantial price premium. In previous years, the spread between high and low-rated credits was negligible. By mid-2025, MSCI reported that credits rated ‘BBB’ and above were trading at a premium of approximately 360% over lower-rated credits. Specifically within NBS, Afforestation, Reforestation, and Revegetation (ARR) projects rated ‘BBB+’ averaged $26.10 per tonne, while their lower-rated counterparts (‘BB-‘ and below) languished at $14.50.
For the CFO, this presents a clear heuristic: the “cheap” option carries a hidden cost. Low-quality credits now face a high probability of becoming stranded assets. Credits that are technically issued but unusable for credible net-zero claims or compliance obligations due to reputational toxicity or regulatory exclusion.
The Supply Crunch in High-Quality NBS
As your organization forecasts its procurement needs for 2026, you must account for a deepening supply deficit in the specific assets you likely desire. While the overall market holds a surplus of legacy credits, the inventory of high-quality credits is shrinking.
For the third consecutive year, highly-rated credits (BBB+) experienced a market deficit in 2025, meaning retirements (consumption) exceeded new issuances. This scarcity is acute in Nature-Based Solutions. While forestry and land use, accounting for 68 million tonnes in 2024, remain the most frequently retired project category, the composition of that supply is changing.
Buyers are aggressively shifting away from legacy REDD+ (avoided deforestation) projects toward removal-based NBS, such as ARR and Improved Forest Management (IFM). In 2025, transaction volumes for IFM projects grew over 300%, while legacy REDD+ volumes fell by 52%.
The implication for your 2026 planning is scarcity. The lead time for new high-quality NBS projects to come online is significant. Consequently, we are witnessing a surge in early-stage offtake agreements. In 2025, the value of announced offtake deals totaled $12.25 billion… a massive leap from $3.95 billion in 2024. Sophisticated buyers, including major energy and technology firms, are locking in future supply at weighted average prices of $160 per credit for durable removals, effectively bypassing the spot market entirely.
Regulatory Convergence: The Compliance Floor
The distinction between “voluntary” and “compliance” markets is eroding, and this convergence will be a primary price driver in 2026. Regulatory bodies are increasingly creating a floor for credit quality that impacts voluntary buyers.
Two mechanisms are driving this shift:
1. CORSIA Phase 1
The Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) has entered its first mandatory compliance phase (2024–2026). The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has tightened eligibility, creating a “compliance-grade” stamp of approval. Sylvera modeling suggests that compliance demand could exceed voluntary demand as early as 2027, largely driven by the approaching CORSIA Phase 1 deadline. This will create direct competition for high-integrity credits between voluntary corporate buyers and regulated aviation entities, inevitably driving up price floors for eligible NBS credits.
2. Article 6 and Corresponding Adjustments
The operationalization of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement is accelerating. As of late 2025, 176 bilateral agreements were in place under Article 6.2. This mechanism allows countries to transfer carbon credits (Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes, or ITMOs) to one another.
For corporate buyers, the critical development for 2026 is the “Corresponding Adjustment” (CA). A CA ensures that when a credit is sold abroad, the host country deducts it from its own national inventory, preventing double-counting. We project that credits with a CA will command a distinct premium and may become a requirement for companies making specific claims under the Paris Agreement framework. With countries like Singapore and Japan already executing trades, the infrastructure for this high-compliance market is solidifying.
3. The Role of Independent Assurance
In an environment of rising prices and regulatory complexity, “trust” is a risk management tool. Reliance on project developer marketing materials is insufficient for audit committees and risk officers.
The rise of independent rating agencies such as MSCI, Sylvera, Calyx Global, and BeZero, has fundamentally altered the due diligence landscape. These agencies now cover the majority of the market; Calyx Global’s ratings alone cover 70% of all retirements from 2021 to 2024.
Data indicates that utilizing these ratings is becoming a prerequisite for transaction security. Buyers are increasingly writing clauses into offtake agreements that allow them to exit the contract if a project’s third-party rating drops below a certain threshold (e.g., ‘BBB’). For 2026, we advise integrating independent ratings data directly into your procurement workflows to mitigate delivery and reputational risk.
Strategic Outlook for 2026
Based on the current trajectory, the role of Nature-Based Solutions in 2026 will be defined by three core realities:
- NBS as a Removal Mechanism: The market will continue to prize “removals” (sequestering carbon) over “avoidance” (preventing emissions). In 2024, removal credits commanded a 381% price premium over reduction credits, up from 245% the previous year. Corporations with net-zero targets must prioritize ARR and IFM projects to align with the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) guidance on residual emissions.
- Co-Benefits as Value Drivers: Buyers are no longer paying solely for the carbon molecule. They are paying for the verified impact on biodiversity and local communities. Projects with quantifiable co-benefits are achieving measurable price uplifts. In 2026, expect biodiversity monitoring to become a standard component of high-quality NBS due diligence.
- The Necessity of Long-Term Positions: The spot market for high-integrity NBS is thinning. If your organization waits to purchase 2026 vintage credits in 2026, you will likely face a restricted supply of “leftover” inventory at inflated prices. The $12 billion surge in offtakes signals that your peers are moving upstream to finance project development directly.
Recommendations for the C-Suite
To navigate the 2026 carbon market landscape effectively, we recommend the following actions:
- Audit Your Inventory: Assess your current holdings against independent ratings. Identify assets at risk of becoming “stranded” due to low integrity scores or lack of alignment with Core Carbon Principles (CCPs).
- Pivot to Offtakes: Move from spot purchasing to multi-year offtake agreements for high-quality ARR and IFM projects. This hedges against future price spikes and secures supply.
- Integrate Compliance Standards: Even if your purchasing is voluntary, align your quality thresholds with CORSIA Phase 1 or Article 6 requirements to future-proof your investments against regulatory creep.
- Demand Data: Require independent ratings and granular monitoring data (MRV) for all prospective NBS investments. Do not rely on issuer claims alone.
The era of cheap, opaque carbon credits is effectively over. The market of 2026 offers clarity and impact, but only for those willing to invest in integrity.
About Carbon Credit Capital
For over 20 years, Carbon Credit Capital has guided global organizations through the complexities of sustainability strategy and carbon finance. To discuss how these 2026 forecasts impact your specific net-zero roadmap, or to analyze the integrity of your current portfolio, connect with our sustainability experts.
Indigo Carbon Surpasses 2 Million Soil Carbon Credits in Landmark 1.1 Million Issuance
Meta, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft Dominate Clean Energy Deals as Global Buying Slips in 2025
Satellites Reveal New Climate Threat to Emperor Penguins
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months 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
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
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 Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits