---
description: Market Landscape and RecycleFarm’s Approach
---

# Carbon Credit 101

### Market Status by Region (2024 & Outlook)

* Global: Around 24% of world emissions are now covered by carbon pricing (taxes or trading). The voluntary carbon credit market remained sluggish in 2024 (\~$1.4 billion in credit retirements) as demand plateaued and average prices fell to \~$4.8/ton. Nonetheless, rising corporate climate pledges and new policies could spur growth – projections see the voluntary market reaching $7–35 billion by 2030 (and up to $250 billion by 2050). Compliance markets also expanded globally in 2024, pushing carbon pricing revenues to a record $104 billion, though overall prices still fall short of levels needed for 2°C goals.\
  \

* United States: The US has no federal carbon market, relying on regional cap-and-trade systems. California’s cap-and-trade (with Québec) is the 4th-largest carbon market globally (after the EU, China, South Korea), covering power and industry with allowance prices around $30–$40/ton in recent years. The RGGI program in the Northeast saw prices above $20/ton in 2024 (exceeding its soft price ceiling), while new state programs (e.g. Washington’s 2023 launch) have tighter caps and higher prices (\~$50/ton early 2025). Over the next decade, more states (like New York in 2026) plan to implement cap-and-invest systems. U.S. corporations are major voluntary credit buyers, using offsets to meet net-zero pledges amid increasing investor and consumer pressure.\
  \

* European Union: The EU ETS remains the world’s most established carbon market, covering \~40% of EU emissions (power, industry, intra-EU aviation, and as of 2024 maritime transport). EU carbon allowance prices averaged €65 (\~$70) in 2024 (down from 2023 highs), but are expected to rise as the cap tightens – forecasts see EU carbon prices doubling to \~€146/ton by 2030 under strengthened climate targets. Reforms in 2023 increased ambition: the ETS cap will be 62% lower by 2030 (vs 2005) and a new ETS-2 for buildings and road transport begins by 2027. The EU also introduced a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism to protect against leakage, reinforcing a long-term bullish outlook on EU carbon credit demand.\
  \

* Asia: China’s national ETS (launched 2021) is already the world’s largest carbon market by volume, initially covering \~4+ billion tons of power-sector emissions. In late 2024 China moved to expand its ETS to steel, cement, and aluminum, raising coverage from \~40% to 60% of national emissions. Chinese carbon prices remain modest (around ¥96 on average, \~$13 per ton, crossing ¥100 for the first time in 2024), due to free allocations and intensity-based targets, but are expected to increase as absolute caps and tighter benchmarks phase in by 2027. South Korea’s K-ETS (in place since 2015) covers most industrial emissions; its allowance prices have fluctuated (often in the single-digit USD per ton) amid oversupply concerns. Across Asia, several countries are developing carbon markets or offset programs (e.g. Japan’s pilot credit market, Indonesia’s planned trading system), anticipating broader adoption and higher credit demand over the next 10 years.\
  \


### Types of Carbon Credits: Compliance vs. Voluntary

* Compliance Credits (Regulated Markets): These are allowances or credits used to meet legal emissions caps under government programs (cap-and-trade or carbon tax systems). Companies in regulated schemes (e.g. EU ETS, California’s program) must surrender credits equal to their emissions; those emitting above their cap must buy additional credits, whereas those emitting less can sell excess credits. Compliance credits are issued and tracked by authorities, ensuring one credit equals one ton CO₂ under the cap. Prices are driven by policy (supply of allowances) and tend to rise as caps tighten (for instance, EU allowances traded around €65 in 2024 and are projected to approach €150 by 2030).\
  \

* Voluntary Credits (Carbon Offsets): These credits are optional and purchased by companies or individuals to offset their emissions outside of any mandated requirement. Each offset represents 1 tonne of CO₂ reduced or removed via a project (e.g. reforestation, renewable energy, direct air capture). Standards organizations (like Verra’s VCS or Gold Standard) certify these projects to ensure the credits are real and additional. Anyone can buy voluntary credits – they are not limited to regulated entities. Businesses often retire these credits to claim “net-zero” or carbon-neutral status. The voluntary market is diverse but unregulated, which means credit quality varies widely. Unlike compliance credits, voluntary offsets rely on market-driven prices and trust in project integrity, leading to a broad price range from a few dollars per ton for generic offsets to hundreds of dollars for high-quality removals (see Price vs Quality section).\
  \


### Key Market Participants and Roles

* Project Developers: Organizations or firms that design and implement emissions-reduction or removal projects (e.g. forestry conservation, renewable energy farms, carbon capture facilities). They are responsible for setting up the project and monitoring its climate impact. Developers follow methodologies set by standards bodies (to quantify CO₂ reductions) and compile evidence (data, reports) to have their project’s credits issued. In both compliance and voluntary markets, project developers supply the carbon credits that will ultimately be sold.\
  \

* Verifiers (Third-Party Auditors): Independent accredited entities that validate and verify the claims of project developers. Verifiers conduct audits (desk reviews and site visits) to ensure the project’s emissions reductions are real and meet the chosen standard’s criteria. They check that the project data is accurate, the baseline and additionality are correct, and that no over-crediting is occurring. Only after a successful third-party verification are carbon credits certified and issued. This role is crucial for maintaining trust and quality in the market – verifiers provide an unbiased “stamp of approval” that a credit truly represents one ton of CO₂ mitigated.\
  \

* Buyers: The end purchasers of carbon credits, including corporates and governments. In compliance systems, buyers are typically regulated companies who must obtain credits/allowances to comply with emissions caps (for example, power companies buying allowances in the EU ETS to cover their CO₂ output). In the voluntary market, buyers are often corporations (and sometimes individuals or NGOs) seeking to offset their carbon footprint as part of CSR, ESG investing, or net-zero commitments. Some national governments also buy international credits or fund offset projects to count toward their climate targets under mechanisms like the Paris Agreement. Buyers play a key role in driving demand: their priorities (e.g. preference for high-quality, verified credits) influence which projects get funded. In sum, project developers supply the credits, verifiers ensure their integrity, and buyers provide the capital, whether for compliance needs or voluntary climate action.\
  \


### Why Buyers Purchase Carbon Credits

* Corporate Climate Commitments: Companies buy carbon credits to offset emissions they cannot eliminate internally, helping them reach climate goals such as net-zero or carbon-neutral pledges. This practice allows firms to compensate for their footprint by funding equivalent reductions elsewhere. With rising public and investor scrutiny, purchasing credible offsets can bolster a company’s sustainability credentials and reputation. Many large corporations (especially in sectors like energy, aviation, tech, and finance) use credits to bridge the gap toward ambitious targets (e.g. Amazon, Microsoft, and others invest in offsets and removals to honor net-zero commitments by 2030-2050). This not only addresses stakeholder pressure but can also spark innovation (by funding new carbon removal technologies) and provide a competitive ESG advantage.\
  \

* Regulatory Compliance: In cap-and-trade programs or emission caps, regulated entities must submit allowances or credits to cover their emissions. Companies therefore buy carbon credits to legally emit above their allocated limit without incurring penalties. For example, a factory in California’s cap-and-trade might purchase additional permits if its emissions exceed its free allocation, or an airline might buy credits under CORSIA (the aviation carbon offset scheme) to comply with sector requirements. Governments can also be buyers in an international context: under the Kyoto Protocol and now Paris Agreement Article 6, countries can purchase carbon credits or pay for emission reductions abroad to help meet their national targets. This allows flexibility – emissions are cut where most cost-effective. In short, credits provide a compliance pathway when internal reductions are expensive or technically difficult, aligning economic incentives with climate regulation.\
  \

* Risk Management and CSR: Beyond mandates and net-zero pledges, some corporates purchase credits proactively to hedge against future carbon costs or to demonstrate industry leadership. Buying offsets can prepare companies for expected carbon pricing regulations (a form of pre-compliance strategy) and signal to investors that they are managing climate risks. It also serves broader Corporate Social Responsibility aims – by supporting projects with co-benefits (community development, biodiversity), companies can align with sustainability values and storytelling. Public sector buyers (e.g. state agencies or multilateral funds) may procure credits to support global climate finance and technology transfer, as seen in programs that buy credits from projects in developing countries to encourage low-carbon growth. Overall, buyers – whether motivated by compliance, voluntary targets, or strategic CSR – purchase carbon credits to address emissions they cannot cut immediately, leveraging the carbon market as a tool to meet environmental objectives and stakeholder expectations.\
  \


### Market Challenges (Transparency, Trust, Verification)

Despite rapid growth, the carbon credit market faces several challenges that undermine its effectiveness and credibility:

* Transparency and Traceability: A persistent issue is the lack of transparency in how credits are generated and transacted. In the voluntary market, many deals are over-the-counter and not fully public, making it hard to trace where money goes. A 2023 World Economic Forum report noted a lack of transparency for investors in voluntary carbon markets, highlighting that in some cases a significant share of what end-buyers pay does not reach the project and communities delivering the climate action. This opaqueness can breed mistrust, as stakeholders cannot easily verify the origins and quality of credits. Additionally, the benefit-sharing is unclear – if only a fraction of funds goes to the project on the ground, the impact per dollar is reduced. Improving transparency (through better disclosure of project data, credit ownership, and fund flows) is critical to building buyer confidence.\
  \

* Quality and Trust (Integrity of Credits): High-profile investigations and studies have raised concerns that many carbon credits may not represent real, additional emissions reductions, eroding trust. For instance, one peer-reviewed analysis found that 87% of offsets used by major companies were likely “low-quality,” carrying a high risk of not delivering the climate benefit claimed. Issues such as over-crediting (projects inflating their emissions baseline or impact), lack of additionality (crediting actions that would have happened anyway), and impermanence (e.g. forests that later burn or are cut down) plague certain project types. These revelations have led to media headlines about “junk” credits and “greenwashing” – companies buying cheap offsets as an easy way to appear green without actually reducing their own emissions. As a result, buyers are increasingly skeptical and calling for higher-quality credits (for example, those from direct air capture or projects with clear permanence). Ensuring that each credit truly equals one ton of CO₂ reduced or removed – and would not have happened otherwise – is the central trust issue the market must resolve.\
  \

* Verification and MRV Challenges: Accurately measuring, reporting, and verifying (MRV) emissions reductions can be technically complex and costly. Traditional offset projects often rely on estimates or models (for example, calculating how much carbon a protected forest absorbs relative to a hypothetical scenario). Verification is typically done infrequently (perhaps once a year or project period) by auditors who must gather on-ground evidence. This can lead to information asymmetry and time lags – problems may not be caught until after credits are sold. Some project types, like avoided deforestation (REDD+), have been criticized for methodological loopholes that allow overestimation of emissions avoided. The cost of rigorous verification is also an issue, as small projects might not afford the best monitoring, potentially compromising quality or excluding them from the market. In summary, current MRV practices, while much improved over the years, still struggle with ensuring accuracy, timeliness, and consistency across diverse project types. Without robust MRV, the credibility of credits suffers.\
  \

* Fragmentation and Standardization: The carbon market is quite fragmented – there are multiple standards (Verra, Gold Standard, American Carbon Registry, etc.), each with its own methodologies and rules. This can lead to inconsistencies in how credits are measured and what “quality” means. There is no single regulator for the voluntary market; governance relies on a patchwork of NGOs and industry initiatives. This lack of uniform oversight means that not all credits are created equal, and it’s challenging for buyers to know which credits to trust. The World Economic Forum has pointed out the need to ensure credits are a “trustworthy representation of real mitigation,” calling for principles like additionality, permanence, and avoidance of adverse side-effects to be rigorously upheld across the board. Efforts are underway (e.g., the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market and the Voluntary Carbon Market Integrity Initiative) to set core criteria and improve standardization. Until such frameworks fully take hold, the market will likely continue to see variability in credit quality and a resultant hesitancy from some investors. In short, the governance challenge is to create common standards and oversight to bolster confidence in the market’s integrity.\
  \


These challenges – transparency, trust, verification, and fragmentation – are interrelated. Addressing them is paramount for the market to scale sustainably. Solutions like better disclosure rules, advanced monitoring technology, stricter certification standards, and possibly government co-regulation are being explored to enhance confidence in carbon credits.

### RecycleFarm’s Solution (Eco-DePIN: Improving MRV & Democratizing Carbon Markets)

RecycleFarm is introducing a novel approach to tackle some of the above challenges by leveraging technology and a new incentivization model. It operates an Eco-DePIN platform – a Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Network for ecological action – which links real-world environmental activities to tokenized carbon credits. In essence, RecycleFarm turns distributed eco-friendly actions into measurable, verifiable carbon reductions, thereby democratizing participation in carbon markets and improving the MRV process. Key aspects of their solution include:

* Real-Time Data and Improved MRV: RecycleFarm deploys IoT-connected devices and sensors (the “physical infrastructure” in Eco-DePIN) to capture data on users’ environmentally friendly actions. For example, they use smart devices like Reverse Vending Machines (to log recycling of bottles), smart tumblers (to track avoided single-use cup waste), integration with EV charging/usage data, and even plan to integrate Direct Air Capture units in the future. Each time a user recycles or avoids emissions through these devices, data (such as the amount of material recycled or kilometers driven on electric) is automatically logged. This direct data capture means that emissions reductions are measured at the source, in real-time, rather than estimated later. All this information is then recorded on a blockchain, providing a transparent and tamper-proof ledger of eco-actions and their carbon impact. By building the system on Web3 infrastructure, RecycleFarm ensures the data and resulting credits are secure and transparent, which boosts trust in the measurement and reporting. In short, the platform dramatically streamlines Verification – the data integrity is ensured by design (blockchain ledgers) and can be audited by anyone, reducing the need for slow, periodic third-party verifications. This approach tackles the MRV challenge by making carbon accounting continuous, digital, and transparent.\
  \

* Democratized Participation and Incentives: A core innovation of RecycleFarm is that it rewards individuals for everyday eco-friendly behaviors by converting those actions into carbon credits (or equivalent tokens). This opens up carbon market participation to virtually anyone, not just large project developers. Users of the RecycleFarm app and devices earn “carbon credit RWA” (Real World Asset) rewards for activities like recycling, reusing products, walking or biking instead of driving, driving electric vehicles, even for contributing to carbon capture projects. For example, a person using a RecycleFarm smart tumbler might earn a certain amount of carbon credit tokens for each single-use cup avoided, reflecting the CO₂ saved. Over time, these micro-contributions aggregate into tradeable carbon credits. By gamifying and tokenizing sustainable actions, RecycleFarm engages a broad population in climate action – something not possible in traditional carbon markets. This “crowd-sourced” carbon reduction model means millions of small contributions can add up to significant climate impact, and the individuals are directly incentivized (financially) to participate. In the big picture, this democratization helps scale the voluntary carbon market’s supply side: it lowers the barrier to entry (you don’t need to run a huge project; you can be a person with a recycling habit) and vastly increases the pool of participants who can generate credible carbon credits.\
  \

* Tokenization and True Carbon Backing: RecycleFarm’s platform issues its own crypto token (RCF token) and digital rewards, but importantly these are backed by real carbon credit value. The company emphasizes that it is the first Web3 project whose tokenomics are underpinned by actual verified carbon credits. This means every reward token corresponds to a quantifiable carbon reduction achieved via the platform’s users/devices. By tying tokens to real-world assets (carbon credits), RecycleFarm aims to avoid the speculation and “empty token” problem that some crypto projects face, thereby giving the tokens intrinsic environmental value. When enough eco-action data is collected (say, equivalent to 1 tonne CO₂ reduced), a verified carbon credit can be issued and potentially sold on the voluntary carbon market. RecycleFarm can then share this value with the users who contributed, or use proceeds to fund further expansion – essentially creating a circular ecosystem where eco-actions generate credits, credits generate revenue, and revenue funds more eco-action devices. The use of blockchain also means each credit or token is traceable to its origin, addressing the transparency and double-counting concerns. Prospective buyers of these credits can see on-chain the provenance (e.g., X tons from recycling, Y tons from a DAC machine) which increases trust. By building a bridge between crypto incentives and real climate impact, RecycleFarm’s model attempts to align financial rewards with verifiable emissions outcomes.\
  \

* Addressing Trust and Scaling Issues: RecycleFarm’s solution directly tackles the trust deficit in voluntary markets. Because credits are based on measured, user-generated data and transparently recorded, there is far less ambiguity about their authenticity. It’s easier to prove, for instance, that “1000 people each recycled 100 bottles which leads to X tons CO₂ avoided” than to validate some complex hypothetical baseline. This clear lineage of credits enhances credibility. Moreover, RecycleFarm’s approach could dramatically scale up the supply of high-quality credits: instead of a few big projects, you have potentially millions of micro-projects feeding into the market. This decentralization of carbon credit generation also spreads the benefits more evenly (individuals and communities get paid for their contributions) – addressing the criticism that current markets often bypass local stakeholders. By lowering MRV costs through automation and engaging the public, RecycleFarm could bring more legitimate credits to market and increase overall market liquidity. In summary, the platform solves key problems by using technology to provide trust (through data transparency) and accessibility (anyone can participate). It’s a convergence of IoT, blockchain, and carbon accounting that strives to make carbon credits more trustworthy and inclusive.\
  \


RecycleFarm’s Eco-DePIN model is still emerging, but it represents a promising innovation in the carbon market space. If successful, it could complement traditional top-down projects with a bottom-up network of verified micro-actions – all while ensuring integrity via continuous MRV. This aligns well with investor interests, as it not only generates carbon credits for sale (a revenue stream) but does so in a way that could command a quality premium (due to transparency and real impact) in an evolving market that is increasingly favoring high-integrity credits.\
\


### Price vs. Quality of Carbon Credits

* Quality-Price Divergence: Carbon credit prices vary dramatically based on project type and perceived quality. In the voluntary market, engineered removal credits (highest quality, e.g. direct air capture) are the most expensive – trading between $200–$400 per ton in 2024. These command a premium because they offer permanent CO₂ removal and have very limited supply. Nature-based removal credits (e.g. reforestation projects) averaged around $20–$25/ton – cheaper than DAC but still higher than avoidance credits, as they store carbon (with some permanence risk) and often provide co-benefits like biodiversity. In contrast, avoidance or reduction credits (e.g. avoided deforestation, renewable energy projects) have been trading at just $1–$5 per ton, due to abundant supply and greater uncertainty about their additionality. Compliance market prices also differ: for instance, EU allowances were \~$80, while a US regional credit might be $20 – reflecting regulatory stringency rather than quality. Overall, higher-integrity credits fetch higher prices, while lower-quality credits trade at a steep discount or struggle to find buyers.\
  \

* Verification and Premiums: Robust verification and certification directly influence credit pricing. Buyers are willing to pay more for credits that meet strict standards and deliver clear co-benefits. Projects with strong MRV, additionality, and co-benefits (e.g. community development, biodiversity) often see prices \~70% higher than those without such credentials. For example, a forestry project certified by Gold Standard or featuring community benefits can charge a premium over a similar uncertified project. In 2023–2024, as integrity concerns grew, the market bifurcated: “top-tier” credits (labelled with new Core Carbon Principles or high ratings) retained or increased value, while many older, dubious credits saw prices collapse. This trend shows a correlation: transparent, well-verified credits = higher quality = higher price. Conversely, credits from projects lacking rigorous verification (or with issues like over-crediting or impermanence) are heavily discounted or unsellable, as buyers fear reputational risk. Investors thus must assess credit quality factors (type, standard, vintage) closely – a low price may signal low trust or quality, whereas high prices tend to indicate scarce, credible reductions that truly contribute to climate goals.\
  \


<figure><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXesY0aoCHknCGSJhdMN8OPo3ESCTcnIYe_UBVMPP9WjHdMcHRNUzWGtz8qt_O-vkgN1wFJaQS6Z7ITi1Z_Hi4Jxin0jbs32nC9pGRZlgxbTuqtHUM1WIOlOtxK8c7RqHCf3hWTc?key=xhU0AQnez30XAyFWCFJoXg" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

### DAC Startup Case Studies (Direct Air Capture Deals)

Direct Air Capture (DAC) is a technology that physically removes CO₂ from ambient air, and it has started to attract significant corporate purchase agreements for carbon removal credits. These deals illustrate growing investor and buyer interest in permanent, high-quality carbon removals. Below are several notable case studies of DAC startups selling carbon credits (removal tons), including buyer names, deal sizes, and regions:

Aerial view of a Direct Air Capture facility under construction (the STRATOS DAC plant in Texas, USA). Large corporates are signing multi-year agreements to buy carbon removal credits from such facilities.

* Microsoft – 1PointFive (USA): Tech giant Microsoft agreed to purchase 500,000 metric tons of CO₂ removal credits over 6 years from 1PointFive, a U.S.-based DAC venture of Occidental Petroleum. This landmark deal, announced in 2024, is the largest DAC credit purchase to date, and the CO₂ will be captured at 1PointFive’s STRATOS DAC facility in Texas and securely sequestered underground. (Buyer region: US; Project region: US)\
  \

* Amazon – 1PointFive (USA): In 2023, Amazon entered its first major carbon removal deal, agreeing to buy 250,000 tons of CO₂ removal credits over 10 years from 1PointFive. This commitment by the e-commerce giant is aimed at offsetting hard-to-abate emissions from its operations (like delivery vehicles and data centers) as it works toward net-zero by 2040. The removals will come from the same STRATOS DAC plant in Texas once it’s operational, with the captured CO₂ injected into saline geologic storage. (Buyer: US; Project: US)\
  \

* Microsoft – Heirloom & Climeworks (USA/Switzerland): Microsoft has also signed deals with other DAC innovators. Notably, in 2023 it announced a $200 million agreement to purchase 315,000 tons of CO₂ removal over 10 years from Heirloom, a DAC startup based in the US, which uses a mineral looping process. Heirloom is partnering with Switzerland’s Climeworks (a leading DAC company) to deliver on this contract, and the project received support from the U.S. DOE as well. Microsoft had earlier also signed a smaller deal directly with Climeworks to remove 10,000 tons of CO₂ via Climeworks’ DAC facility in Iceland (over a decade). These deals underscore Microsoft’s role as one of the biggest buyers of carbon removal credits globally and its strategy of supporting various DAC technologies. (Buyer: US; Project: US/Europe collaboration)\
  \

* Airbus & easyJet – 1PointFive (EU/USA): European aviation is also investing in DAC removals. Airbus, as part of its carbon capture offering for airline clients, agreed to pre-purchase 400,000 tons of CO₂ removal credits from 1PointFive over four years. One of the first airlines to sign on is easyJet (UK-based), which in 2023 committed to take a portion of these credits from 2026 to 2029 to address its future residual emissions. Similarly, Lufthansa Group and Air Canada have joined Airbus’s DAC initiative. These deals are facilitated by Airbus (EU) but sourced from the DAC plant in the U.S., reflecting a Europe-to-US partnership to deliver high-quality removal credits. (Buyer: EU airlines; Project: US)\
  \

* All Nippon Airways (ANA) – 1PointFive (Japan/USA): In August 2023, ANA (Japan’s largest airline) became the first Asian airline to sign a DAC credit purchase agreement. ANA will buy 30,000 tons of CO₂ removal credits (10,000 tons per year for 3 years, starting in 2025) from 1PointFive. The credits will come from the Texas DAC facility (STRATOS), making this a pioneering DAC deal in the Asian region. ANA’s motivation is to diversify its decarbonization strategy for aviation – using DAC removals to handle emissions that are hard to eliminate in flying. This deal also helps raise the profile of DAC in Asia as a viable solution for net-zero goals. (Buyer: Japan; Project: US)\
  \


Each of these case studies highlights a few trends: long-term off-take agreements (often 5–10+ years) for DAC credits, involvement of big-name corporate buyers (especially tech and aviation companies) willing to pay a premium for high-quality removals, and a global reach – with US-based DAC projects attracting buyers from the US, Europe, and Asia. The deal sizes vary from tens of thousands up to half a million tons, and some involve significant financial investment (e.g. Microsoft’s $200M with Heirloom). Notably, many buyers (Microsoft, Airbus, ANA, Shopify, etc.) announced these deals as part of their net-zero plans, signaling to investors that carbon removal is a strategic priority.

For investors, these examples show that there is growing demand for reliable carbon removal credits – a market niche where prices are much higher than typical offsets but so is the confidence in climate impact (DAC credits can sell for hundreds of dollars per ton given their permanence). Companies like 1PointFive, Climeworks, Heirloom and others are essentially selling future carbon removal capacity, often using the funds to build out their facilities. Deals such as Microsoft’s 500k-ton purchase or Airbus’s 400k-ton pre-purchase demonstrate that if a solution can be proven and trusted, large buyers are ready to commit capital at scale. This bodes well for emerging carbon tech players and suggests an evolving carbon market where quality and permanence (like DAC) command significant investment.

Sources: Carbon market reports (2024), World Bank; MSCI; CarbonCredits.com; Gordian Knot Strategies; BloombergNEF; ICAP data; Investopedia; Arbonics; World Economic Forum; Climeworks/Microsoft release; Airbus/1PointFive release; Seneca ESG.
