Puro.earth, a global platform for engineered carbon removal, has secured €11 million in Series B funding. Nasdaq led the round, with support from Fortum Innovation and Venturing.
The investment marks a significant milestone for the company and the broader carbon removal market, which is expected to expand rapidly over the next decade. The funds will help Puro.earth boost its infrastructure, support suppliers better, and speed up the issuance of reliable carbon removal credits.
Strengthening the Backbone of Carbon Removal
The new funding will support Puro.Earth’s efforts to expand its infrastructure for issuing CO₂ Removal Certificates (CORCs). These certificates show verified carbon credits for removing one metric ton of carbon dioxide from the air. This is done using methods like biochar, enhanced rock weathering, and direct air capture.
Key areas where the investment will be deployed include:
- Enhancing supplier onboarding to bring more carbon removal projects into the system.
- Improving digital monitoring, reporting, and verification (dMRV) tools to ensure transparency.
- Scaling credit issuance to meet rising demand from corporations with net-zero commitments.
- Building stronger links between credit buyers and project developers.
These initiatives are designed to make carbon removal a trusted and reliable part of the global climate toolkit.
Passing the One Million Credit Milestone
Puro.earth has already achieved a major industry milestone: the issuance of more than 1 million CORCs since its launch in 2019. Each certificate represents one verified metric ton of carbon dioxide removed. Notably, the platform doubled its issuance volume in just a year, underlining how quickly demand and supply are scaling.
The company expects the next million CORCs to be issued by mid-2026, showing exponential growth potential. For context, the credits issued to date are equivalent to removing the annual emissions of around 250,000 passenger cars. This progress shows how quickly engineered carbon removal is moving from a niche market to a mainstream climate solution.
Why the Funding Matters
Puro.earth’s Series B financing will help unlock several critical steps for scaling the carbon removal industry. With better infrastructure and closer supplier ties, the platform can boost CORC issuance. It can also widen the range of removal methods available.
This matters because companies around the world are under pressure to meet net-zero pledges. Access to trusted carbon removal credits provides a pathway for organizations to address residual emissions after reducing their own footprint.
High-quality credits show that corporations are serious about climate leadership. This impresses regulators, investors, and customers.
Jan-Willem Bode, President of Puro.earth, reiterate this saying:
“With this latest round of funding, we’re strengthening the systems that facilitate scale in CDR deployment and enhancing our customer offerings to better support the growing demand for durable engineered removals. Our approach is grounded in science, market discipline, and transparency. This is what our ecosystem of buyers and suppliers demands— Nasdaq and Puro.earth are well-placed to meet this need by combining financial infrastructure and climate expertise to foster innovation and accelerate the carbon market growth.”
Rising Demand for Engineered Carbon Removal
The global carbon removal market is still in its early stages, but demand is accelerating. In 2024, purchases of durable removal (CDR) credits totaled 8 million metric tons of CO₂.
Biochar projects made up most of the certified credits. Puro.earth was the top registry for these methods.
Market forecasts point to exponential growth. Analysts estimate that the carbon removal market, valued at about $2.7 billion in 2023, could grow to as much as $100 billion annually by 2030–2035. Such growth depends on stronger policy support, buyer confidence, and technological advances that reduce costs.
Government policies are already playing a role. The U.S. Inflation Reduction Act offers incentives for carbon removal. Meanwhile, the European Union is creating its own certification frameworks. These measures encourage companies in energy, finance, aviation, and technology to look into lasting carbon removal credits.
What Sets Puro.earth Apart in the Carbon Market
With the backing of Nasdaq and Fortum, Puro.earth is positioning itself as a central hub in the carbon removal ecosystem. The company’s platform has several features that strengthen its credibility:
- Rigorous methodologies:
CORCs use conservative baselines. This ensures credits show only extra, verifiable removals. - Transparency:
Digital tools track and verify carbon storage, helping buyers trust the credits they purchase. - Scalability:
By focusing on engineered removals such as biochar and direct air capture, Puro.earth connects buyers with solutions that can expand rapidly.
This approach sets Puro.earth apart from project-level registries. Those registries have faced criticism for integrity issues. The platform aims to rebuild buyer trust in carbon markets by creating a strong framework at the jurisdiction level.
Strengthening ERW Credibility
Recently, Puro.earth has launched a public consultation. This aims to enhance its Enhanced Rock Weathering (ERW) method, the first engineered carbon removal approach of its kind. The revision aims to align with the latest scientific advances and its own General Rules and ICVCM benchmarks.
Key updates are:
- Stricter measurement methods now require two ways to verify CO₂ removal.
- Sampling guidance for soil chemistry is clearer.
- There’s explicit accounting for carbon loss factors, like plant uptake and river transport.
The new method adds uncertainty discounts and needs strong statistical checks. This boosts both scientific accuracy and market trust.
Barriers Ahead: High Costs and Market Fragmentation
Despite the positive outlook, challenges remain. High costs continue to be a barrier for many engineered carbon removal projects. Market fragmentation means many standards and methods compete for attention. This can confuse buyers. In addition, demand has not yet caught up with potential supply.
In 2021, the voluntary carbon market reached a peak of 516 million metric tons in transactions, but volumes fell to around 84 million tons by 2024. Forest and land-use projects fell sharply. This made buyers more cautious about offset integrity.
Jurisdictional and engineered solutions from Puro.earth can help with these issues. However, building trust will take time.
Still, analysts see the potential for a $250 billion carbon removal market in the future. Institutional support, like Nasdaq’s role in this funding round, can boost confidence and speed up adoption.
Can Puro.earth Lead a $100B Market?
The outlook for carbon removal is both challenging and promising. Demand for verified credits is growing, yet it remains far below the levels needed to align with global climate goals.
Analysts estimate that by 2050, the world will need to remove billions of tons of CO₂ annually to stay within safe temperature limits. For platforms like Puro.earth, this means scaling quickly, building trust, and ensuring credits meet the highest integrity standards.
With the €11 million Series B funding, Puro.earth is taking important steps in that direction. The company aims to close the gap between bold climate promises and real outcomes. They’re doing this by:
- Strengthening supplier infrastructure
- Improving digital verification
- Supporting more project developers
As the world approaches the 2030 milestone, engineered carbon removal will play a bigger role in net-zero strategies. If Puro.earth meets its growth goals, it could create a multi-billion-dollar carbon removal industry. This would also help make corporate climate goals a reality. In this way, the company’s progress reflects both the urgency and the opportunity of building a sustainable carbon removal market.
- READ MORE: Microsoft (MSFT Stock) Tops Q2 2025 Record-Breaking Surge in Durable Carbon Removal Credit Purchases
The post Puro.earth Secures €11M as Nasdaq Backs Engineered Carbon Removal Boom 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