What it is
This topic bundles two related but distinct problems: measuring carbon (the data side of decarbonization) and removing carbon (engineered and nature-based methods that actively pull CO2 out of the atmosphere, rather than just avoiding new emissions). Engineered carbon removal is folded in here rather than given its own topic, since it’s closely tied to the measurement and verification infrastructure this topic already covers.
Measurement
Emissions factors — standardized multipliers that convert activity data (dollars spent on a flight, kWh of electricity used, tons of steel purchased) into estimated CO2e — are the backbone of the carbon accounting software described in the Climate SaaS topic. Increasingly, this measurement layer also includes satellite-based monitoring, which can detect methane leaks and other emissions directly from space rather than relying on self-reported activity data, a fast-growing, more verifiable alternative to estimate-based accounting.
Removal: two families
- Nature-based removal — afforestation and reforestation, soil carbon sequestration (farming practices that store more carbon in soil), and blue carbon (protecting or restoring carbon-rich coastal ecosystems like mangroves and seagrass).
- Engineered removal — Direct Air Capture (DAC), machines that chemically extract CO2 directly from ambient air; Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), which burns biomass for energy while capturing the resulting CO2; enhanced weathering, which accelerates a natural rock-weathering process that absorbs CO2; and ocean-based removal methods, still early and largely experimental.
Removal vs. avoidance
This is a common source of confusion, and controversy, in this space. An avoidance credit prevents emissions that would otherwise have happened (paying to keep a forest from being logged); a removal credit represents CO2 actively taken out of the atmosphere. Removal is generally considered higher-quality and more defensible, but today it’s far more expensive per ton than avoidance.
Additionality and permanence
Two concepts determine how trustworthy a given credit or claim actually is:
- Additionality — whether the emissions reduction would have happened anyway, without the credit revenue. A project that isn’t additional isn’t really reducing anything — the single most common critique of low-quality voluntary carbon credits.
- Permanence — how long a removal method actually keeps carbon out of the atmosphere. A newly planted tree can burn down or be cut down decades later, re-releasing its stored carbon, while injecting CO2 into deep geological formations is considered far more permanent.
A quick gut-check for both: additionality asks “would this have happened anyway, credit or no credit?” Permanence asks “if it did happen, how long does it actually stay out of the atmosphere?” A cheap credit that fails either test isn’t worth much, no matter how good the marketing looks.
MRV, again
MRV (Measurement, Reporting, and Verification), introduced in the Climate Policy & Economics topic, matters even more here, since carbon removal claims are inherently harder to independently verify than a company’s own reported emissions.
Why it matters
This is the hub’s most technical, fastest-evolving subsector, and companies here fall into two very different camps: software/data companies (emissions measurement, MRV platforms, satellite monitoring) that look a lot like the rest of Climate SaaS, and genuinely industrial “hard tech” companies (DAC, BECCS) building physical infrastructure rather than software. Knowing which camp a given company is in, and where it sits on the avoidance/removal and additionality/permanence axes, is essential for evaluating whether its climate claims hold up.