Carbon markets often face skepticism from both climate activists and deniers. As we debate ideological purity, 2024 estimates suggest we have already surpassed several climate thresholds, making the 1.5°C target feel increasingly unattainable1. Major economies like the U.S. and billion-dollar initiatives like the Bezos Earth Fund are backtracking on climate action23. A staggering 23% of United States’ elected members are climate deniers, turning legislative action, Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) implementation, and large-scale decarbonization into an uphill battle4.

Within a capitalist framework where decarbonization remains a backburner priority for governments and society alike, carbon markets—while imperfect—may be one of the few mechanisms that can realistically operate within the current system. As consumers increasingly align their spending with their values, companies with deep pockets are turning to carbon removals, offsets, and credits to justify their continued expansion and their reluctance to fully decarbonize. In many ways, carbon markets have become the modern version of buying indulgences for sins—a morally messy but potentially necessary mechanism to curb some of the worst consequences of climate change, while allowing business as usual to carry on.

However, these markets come with hard truths. They are still nascent, volatile, and fraught with risk. In their early stages, they often served more as PR tools, greenwashing their way into the pockets of tech billionaires than driving real climate impact. The market’s immaturity—paired with the urgency of its adoption—made it vulnerable to bad actors. Early projects frequently fell short on the four fundamental pillars of credibility: additionality, verifiability, immediacy, and durability. The lack of oversight let questionable projects slip through, further fueling widespread skepticism.

That said, things are starting to shift. Regulations are tightening, and registries and standard-setting bodies are refining their frameworks, making it harder (and more critical) for projects to meet higher standards. This is both a challenge and an opportunity—better oversight will improve credibility, but it could also slow the scaling of projects, delay first-of-a-kind (FOAK) innovations, and hamper the speed at which new solutions enter the market.

Let’s get one thing straight: no matter how sophisticated carbon markets become or how much corporations are willing to compensate for their emissions, they will never replace emissions reductions. A stable climate is simply not achievable without urgent, large-scale emissions cuts—starting yesterday. No amount of Silicon Valley investment in reforestation, enhanced rock weathering, or direct air capture will save us if we fail to transition away from fossil fuels. The irreversible consequences of crossing critical climate tipping points—melting ice sheets, permafrost thaw, and the dieback of key forests—are not distant threats. They are unfolding right now, triggering agricultural collapse, mass displacement, and economic devastation5.

In this sense, carbon markets are capitalism’s way of saying, if you want to continue prioritizing profit at the expense of the public good, you’d better at least pay up to clean up your mess. Yes, this system perpetuates the very structures that got us here in the first place. But let’s be real—we don’t have the luxury of ideological purity. Until governments step up (not holding my breath), the burden will continue to fall on the private sector, NGOs, and individuals to lead the charge.

The Hopeful Projects

Last year, I worked for a biochar carbon removal project developer based in the Philippines, helping build and scale the country’s first biochar project. For those unfamiliar with biochar, let me put you on.

Biochar—combining “biomass” and “charcoal”—is a porous, stable form of carbon created through pyrolysis, a process that heats biomass in low-oxygen environments, trapping the carbon in the char and serving as a regenerative soil amendment. Indigenous communities in the Amazon perfected this long before us, calling it Terra Preta (“dark earth”).

So, why does this matter? Biochar is one of the few truly durable carbon removal solutions, capable of storing carbon for over 100 years—possibly much longer6. This permanence makes it increasingly attractive to both investors and buyers in the carbon removal market.

In the Philippines, our work tackled a major agricultural waste issue: rice husks. Instead of letting them rot (methane emissions) or burn (air pollution), we turned them into biochar. We then provided that biochar to poultry farmers for bedding, where it reduced ammonia levels and improved hygiene. When the bedding needed replacing, we bought it back, mixed it with the chicken manure, and applied it as fertilizer across smallholder farms—a closed-loop, circular solution.

The results?

• Healthier soil → Higher yields and better crop quality
• Improved water and nutrient retention → More resilient crops
• Reduced chemical fertilizer dependency → Lower costs for farmers

Sounds great, right? The catch? It’s prohibitively expensive for farmers to afford on their own. This is where government subsidies and carbon removal credits come in.

Biochar isn’t just some fleeting trend. In 2023, biochar projects accounted for 90% of delivered carbon removal credits7. Some studies suggest biochar could sequester up to 6% of global emissions annually8.

But there’s a problem. The carbon credit system disproportionately favors biochar projects using high-lignin feedstocks like wood, coconut shells, or cacao husks—materials often more readily available in certain regions. This leaves Southeast Asian producers, who work with lower-lignin agricultural wastes like rice husks, at a disadvantage. Their credits often fetch lower prices, even though their work is critical for improving soil health in regions facing severe land degradation9. This means that the highest-priced credits are coming from regions with easy access to “ideal” biomass, leaving others struggling to sell their credits despite their massive local impact. See the issue?

Google’s Landmark Biochar Deal with Varaha

In a groundbreaking move, Google has agreed to purchase 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide removal credits from Indian startup Varaha, marking the largest biochar carbon removal deal to date10111. This deal is significant for several reasons:

1. Scale and Impact: Varaha’s industrial biochar project in Gujarat, India, will generate biochar from the invasive plant species Prosopis Juliflora, using pyrolysis. This process not only captures and stores carbon but also helps restore native grasslands by removing the invasive species101.
2. Smallholder Inclusion: The deal underscores the importance of smallholder farmers in carbon removal projects. Varaha works directly with small farmers, providing them with biochar technology to permanently store CO2 in solid form. This initiative supports smallholder livelihoods while contributing to large-scale carbon removal113.
3. Technological Innovation: Varaha has developed a digital monitoring, reporting, and verification system that integrates remote sensing to monitor biomass availability. This technology ensures transparency and accuracy in carbon credit generation, setting a new standard for the industry1011.
4. Long-term Commitment: The credits will be delivered to Google by 2030, demonstrating a long-term commitment to carbon removal. This deal is part of Google’s broader strategy to achieve net-zero emissions across all its operations and value chains by 2030102.

Other Carbon Projects

Some carbon projects are less “trendy” but just as critical:

• Halocarbon and Methane Destruction: Refrigerants are thousands of times more potent than CO₂, and abandoned oil wells leak methane, which has 80 times the warming potential of CO₂ over 20 years. There’s little public or private incentive to address these emissions—except through carbon markets.
• Blue Carbon Projects: Mangroves can sequester carbon up to 10 times more efficiently than tropical forests while protecting coastal communities from flooding. However, the communities best positioned to restore mangroves often struggle to secure financing, despite the potential for massive co-benefits like job creation, food security, and climate resilience.

Yet both struggle with funding. Why? Because many projects require high upfront costs, and investors often look at risk vs. reward. Carbon markets can support the former projects effectively but aren’t designed to support other, equally necessary projects effectively.

Conclusion

Until we develop a better system, carbon markets are one of the few tools available that can deliver results right now—without requiring a seismic shift in political will or public consciousness (even though, let’s be honest, we desperately need both for a livable future). But there’s a non-negotiable condition: people.

Projects and their credits can’t just be numbers on a spreadsheet. They must reflect the realities and needs of the communities most affected by climate change—communities that often lack the resources to fund solutions or adapt on their own. Whether it’s smallholder farmers in the Philippines, local fishermen restoring mangroves in Madagascar, or Indigenous groups preserving the Amazon, these stakeholders must have a seat at the table. Better yet, they should be at the head of it. Wishful thinking sure, but also the only way that these projects work at their fullest potential.

Because, at the end of the day, mitigating climate change isn’t just about carbon. It’s about people, all of us. We have a shared responsibility.

“Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed.” — Mohandas K. Gandhi

Key Takeaways

1. We need drastic emissions reductions.
2. We need better carbon markets.
3. We need to find other funding solutions for high-impact projects. Some of the best climate solutions don’t always fit neatly into the current carbon market mold. We should fund them anyway.
4. We need to stop thinking of carbon markets as a silver bullet. They are one tool in a very intricate, complicated toolbox. They are not the endgame.
5. Most importantly, we need to hold everyone accountable.

Carbon markets won’t fix climate change. But if done right (big if), they can be part of the solution. And at this point, we need every solution we can get111234