Here are the Right Reasons to Buy Carbon Removal Credits

August 10, 2026

Print This Article Share it With Friends

by Donna Lee and Bodie Cabiyo (Trellis) There is no intrinsic quality difference between removal-based credits versus reduction credits. Key Takeaways:

We need to scale both carbon removal capacity and reduce emissions dramatically, and buying credits can help achieve each goal.
Today, reducing emissions or removing CO2 have the same atmospheric impact.
Buyers should spend what they can on high quality credits, whether removals or reductions.

...

Many companies are confused about whether they should purchase only removal credits. These are credits that pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere — from planting trees to novel technologies, such as machines that pull CO2 from the air. By contrast, other credit types reduce emissions at the source, by destroying methane emissions from a landfill, reducing deforestation or other methods.

Which type should your company buy? The guidance is mixed: The Science Based Targets initiative’s (SBTi’s) Corporate Net-Zero Standard historically defined a role only for removals, driving many companies to focus solely on this credit type. Meanwhile, the Oxford Offsetting Principles suggest a dynamic portfolio mix, consisting of a higher percentage of reduction credits today and transitioning over time to removals.

Recently, the two have converged. SBTi revised its guidance and now recognizes reduction credits as a way for companies to manage responsibility for ongoing emissions in the near term (before their “net-zero” target deadline). Here’s how things stand now:

Wrong reasons to buy removals

Removals are ‘more beneficial to the atmosphere’

A classic analogy is that emissions fill the bathtub (the atmosphere), while removals are a drain removing water from the tub. But today, the bath is being filled more than 20 times faster than it is being drained. And the drain — which today consists almost entirely of forest-based removals — is about 2 billion metric tons of CO2 per year, while the tap, mostly fossil fuel emissions, is 42 billion a year. In short: We desperately need to turn off the tap. Whether we stop a ton of CO2 from being emitted or remove a ton, the impact on the level of water in the bathtub is the same.

Removal credits have ‘higher greenhouse gas integrity’

There is no intrinsic quality difference between removal-based credits versus reduction credits.

...

Right reasons to buy removals

We need to rapidly scale carbon removal capacity

Although it is critical to “turn off the tap,” there are good reasons to support removals by investing in such credits. The goal, after all, is to reach global net-zero, and removals will be critical to offset residual emissions.

...

Nature-based removals are good for people and the planet

Nature is responsible for more than 99 percent of carbon removal today. Managing and restoring ecosystems are time-tested and affordable carbon removal solutions. Furthermore, these solutions can have numerous benefits beyond carbon removal.

...

The way forward: How to decide on removals or reductions

This is not an either/or question: We need both types of credits. The more salient question is what is the right portfolio mix? Removals are more expensive, especially novel removals. Credits that reduce emissions, such as reducing methane from manure or destroying refrigerant gas, tend to be less expensive, but are often less charismatic and harder to explain.

So what should companies purchase? Our guidance is simple: