{"id":482,"date":"2025-01-24T09:00:01","date_gmt":"2025-01-24T14:00:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/research.american.edu\/carbonremoval\/?p=482"},"modified":"2025-02-11T09:46:36","modified_gmt":"2025-02-11T14:46:36","slug":"getting-durable-cdr-off-the-island-climagination-with-jason-grillo","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/research.american.edu\/carbonremoval\/2025\/01\/24\/getting-durable-cdr-off-the-island-climagination-with-jason-grillo\/","title":{"rendered":"Getting durable CDR off the island \u2013 Climagination with Jason Grillo"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

\u201cNo man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.\u201d – John Donne<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

Hey everyone! It\u2019s January and that means year-end data is now available – and lots of it! – from a wide variety of sources covering the previous 12 months of activity in carbon credit markets.\u00a0 My goal in writing this post is to unearth some insights from the broader voluntary carbon market; my hope is for folks in carbon removal to consider how a broader landscape may affect their activities to durably remove CO2 from the atmosphere. To take John Donne\u2019s quote a step further: CDR credits are not islands entire to themselves, but a piece of a broader carbon credits \u2018continent\u2019, a part of the main VCM.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In that light, I\u2019m going to <\/span>totally nerd out<\/del> analyze some year end data from 2024 about price and quality expectations and in the end suggest some integration strategies. I\u2019ll use a market segmentation (alluded to <\/span>by Robert Hoglund here<\/span><\/a>) of three sub-markets of the VCM: traditional avoidance credits, Nature-Based removals, and novel\/durable CDR.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Traditional avoidance\/renewables credits<\/b><\/p>\n

Quality, quality, quality<\/span>.<\/span><\/i> For the bulk of credits retired in the VCM, one trend in 2024 is a flight to quality. Several sources noted this, in particular <\/span>market analytics company MSCI,<\/span><\/a> as measured by an increased the percentage of retired credits achieving MSCI\u2019s rating of \u201cA\u201d or \u201cAA\u201d (6% to 12%), and significant decrease of retired credits rated \u201cCCC\u201d (29% to 15%), comparing Q2 2024 values to Q2 2022. Increased scrutiny as required by new regulations such as CSRD or California\u2019s climate disclosure law may be a reason for this, in addition to media reports critical of carbon credits in this segment or lawsuits for greenwashing against major companies.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

As the market for carbon credits of any variety matures, the type of rating employed by MSCI and many others may allow a shorthand for sustainability professionals to evaluate projects and price accordingly by rating. If this trend to favor quality continues, then projects that remove CO2 from the atmosphere would get more attention – <\/span>assuming CDR projects are able to obtain such high ratings.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

Volume is flat.<\/span><\/i><\/span> Purchasers\u2019 flight to quality is affecting VCM volume as well: credits retired is plateauing in recent years (by some accounts slightly declining) at around 170 to 175 million tons retired annually, per <\/span>Sylvera\u2019s 2024 Year-end report.<\/span><\/a>\u00a0 That said, the market is demonstrating much greater volume relative to 2018 to 2020 totals.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"
Source: Sylvera<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Increased demand for high quality has led to more Nature Based Solution (NBS) carbon removal project tonnage retirements, totaling 16% (blue + purple in the Sylvera chart): Afforestation\/Reforestation\/Revegetation (ARR),\u00a0 Improved Forest Management (IFM), or Soil\/Agricultural removal credits. The REDD and \u2018Avoidance\u2019 (i.e. Renewable Energy Credit) categories listed here are <\/span>declining <\/span><\/i>in volume, from 73% in 2021 to 58% in 2024 in a market of roughly the same size year-over-year. Carbon removal developers please note that for all the increases in volume in durable CDR, the entire market (for now) is only a sliver of the picture: 200k credits retired out of ~175 million in 2024.<\/span><\/p>\n

Purchasers are retiring credits<\/span>.<\/span><\/i> Despite the quality concerns and headwinds, the number of buyers who are retiring credits continues to grow. By this data, the number of organizations retiring credits has <\/span>more than tripled since 2020.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

\"\"
Source: Allied Offsets<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

So to recap the traditional market segment – and overall picture – there are:<\/span><\/p>\n

1) more buyers than ever in global offset markets, who are\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

2) retiring just about the same amount of credits,\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

3) of higher quality, with\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

4) a greater percentage of carbon removal, including NBS, in recent years.<\/span><\/p>\n

Nature Based Solutions<\/b><\/p>\n

The flight to quality led to Nature-Based carbon removal credits getting to 1 of 6 retirements in 2024, compared to 1 in 10 in 2020. Registries for NBS credits adhering to ICVCM Core Carbon Principles, and CORSIA standards are a key factor driving this trend. <\/span>That said, project issuances of NBS removal credits declined while NBS retirements remained steady in 2024 relative to previous years, with NBS offtake credit price at just over $20\/ton per <\/span>Allied Offsets 2024 VCM report<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"
Source: Allied Offsets<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

So – there\u2019s a possibility of an NBS crunch if this trend and preference for quality continues in 2025. The question is whether corporate buyers will continue to nature based removals or instead select durable CDR as a credit of choice going forward. And one factor influencing a more mainstream credit purchaser is price.<\/span><\/p>\n

Durable CDR<\/b><\/p>\n

Pricing will be a critical factor, with estimates of potential purchaser preference outlined in the CDR.FYI and OPIS <\/span>price estimate survey<\/span><\/a>, organized by CDR method, for both 2025 and predicted 2030 prices. <\/span>(Disclosure: This week I joined the CDR.FYI team of collaborating volunteers)<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

One interesting cut on the data, noted in the report, is how \u2018veteran\u2019 carbon removal buyers would have different price expectations from prospective buyers of CDR credits.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Specifically looking at their price expectations for \u201cGood Value\u201d, the team noticed that previous purchasers of durable CDR credits were willing to pay (usually) higher prices than those respondents who had not yet purchased credits.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Given these price sensitivities for a new prospective purchaser, any carbon removal method will not be able to compete strictly on price, especially if sustainability offices face budgeting issues in future years. Instead, encouraging a portfolio approach that combines NBS removal with a small amount of durable CDR might be a way to establish a new market. Then, as the novice durable CDR purchaser gets more familiar, the price expectations would rise and possibly purchase a greater volume of durable CDR credits.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In 2025, SBTi guidance on how to fit durable carbon removal offsets into a Net Zero pathway could improve the prospects for all durable carbon removal credits. That said, if credit customers believe they can get enough of the durability, additionality, and verifiability from Nature based solutions, then that would suggest a world where lower priced carbon removal credits in 2030 are favored.<\/span><\/p>\n

Conclusions<\/b><\/p>\n

Durable carbon removal is still in its early stages as an option in carbon credit markets. As the larger voluntary carbon market moves to a more quality-focused stage of development, registries, standards, and ratings will play an increasing role as purchasers evaluate projects that are ready to provide credits. Rather than competing strictly against other classes of carbon credits, durable carbon removal project developers who are keen to find purchasers would do well to consider how their credits integrate with trends shaping the sub-markets for Nature Based Solutions and traditional offsets. For as those markets shift, durable CDR could find opportunity for future credit purchasing to finance industry growth.<\/span><\/p>\n

Jason Grillo Co-Founded AirMiners and is a voluntary contributor to CDR.FYI. The opinions expressed in this writing are the author\u2019s own and do not reflect the position of any employer or associated organization.<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u201cNo man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.\u201d – John Donne Hey everyone! It\u2019s January and that means year-end data is now available – and lots of it! – from a wide variety of sources covering the previous 12 months of activity … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Getting durable CDR off the island \u2013 Climagination with Jason Grillo”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,65],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-482","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blog-post","category-climagination"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/research.american.edu\/carbonremoval\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/482","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/research.american.edu\/carbonremoval\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/research.american.edu\/carbonremoval\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research.american.edu\/carbonremoval\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research.american.edu\/carbonremoval\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=482"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/research.american.edu\/carbonremoval\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/482\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/research.american.edu\/carbonremoval\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=482"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research.american.edu\/carbonremoval\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=482"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research.american.edu\/carbonremoval\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=482"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}