I’ve helped small teams at newsrooms and startups think through purchases that had both financial and ethical dimensions, so when our readers ask how to choose between competing carbon offsets, I try to answer with the same practical clarity I apply to reporting. Buying carbon credits as a small business isn’t just a line-item in your sustainability plan — it’s a signal to customers, partners, and staff about how seriously you take climate action. But not all offsets are created equal. Below I walk through the criteria I use to evaluate options, red flags to watch for, and a simple checklist you can apply when deciding where to spend your sustainability budget.
Start with your goals
Before comparing projects, be explicit about what you want the credits to achieve. Are you trying to:
- Compensate unavoidable emissions (e.g., business travel, part of your operational footprint)?
- Support long-term carbon removal (soil carbon, biochar, direct air capture)?
- Fund social co-benefits (community development, biodiversity protection)?
- Buy high-impact, lower-cost avoidance projects (cookstoves, renewable energy in emerging markets)?
Your goal determines the type of offset you should prioritize. For example, if you want to credibly claim “carbon neutral,” most frameworks expect a mix of immediate compensations and a pipeline of removals over time.
Understand the main types of credits
Broadly speaking, credits fall into two categories: emission reductions/avoidance and removals.
- Avoidance/reduction: Projects that prevent emissions that would otherwise have occurred — like household cookstoves, methane capture at landfills, or renewable energy in countries with coal-heavy grids. These are often cheaper but can be vulnerable to questions about additionality and permanence.
- Removals: Projects that take CO2 out of the atmosphere and store it — afforestation, reforestation, soil carbon, biochar, and engineered solutions like direct air capture (DAC). Removals are generally more durable (especially DAC with permanent storage) but costlier and vary widely in verification complexity.
Key evaluation criteria I use
When I compare two competing credits, these are the factors I weigh, in roughly this order:
- Standard and registry: Is the project certified by a recognized standard—Verra (VCS), Gold Standard, Climate Action Reserve, or SCS—and listed on a transparent registry? Standards don’t guarantee perfection, but they matter. Look for registration numbers and public documentation.
- Additionality: Would the project have happened anyway? The more convincing the counterfactual (what would have occurred without the project), the more credible the credit.
- Permanence: How long will the carbon stay out of the atmosphere? Forest projects risk reversal through fire or logging. Look for buffer pools, insurance mechanisms, and whether credits are labeled as temporary vs. permanent.
- Leakage: Does reducing emissions in one place cause emissions to increase elsewhere? Good project reports will quantify and mitigate leakage.
- Measurement and verification: Are independent third parties conducting regular monitoring and verification? Check audit reports and the dates of the latest verifications.
- Co-benefits: Does the project support biodiversity, local livelihoods, or gender equity? These aren’t substitutes for rigorous carbon accounting, but they increase social value and reduce reputational risk.
- Transparency and traceability: Can you trace credits back to a project page with methodology, baseline, verification reports and serial numbers? Avoid opaque bundled products unless the provider shares detailed provenance.
- Price vs. impact: High price isn’t a proxy for quality. Compare what you’re actually buying: a $15/ton reforestation credit with weak permanence isn’t necessarily better than a $40/ton verified soil carbon project.
Practical due diligence steps
Here’s a short workflow I use when considering a project or marketplace:
- Ask for project documentation: methodology, baseline, monitoring reports, verification statements, and registry IDs.
- Confirm the standard and check the project on the registry (Verra Registry, Gold Standard project list, etc.).
- Check dates: when was the last verification? Are emissions reductions recent and ongoing?
- Look for counter-evidence in media or NGO reporting. Some well-known registries have projects under scrutiny; dig into critiques and responses.
- Talk to the provider about retirement: who will retire the credits and when? Demand a retirement certificate you can publish.
- Consider portfolioing: spread your purchase across types (avoidance + removals) and geographies to lower risk.
Red flags to avoid
During my research, I’ve seen recurring warning signs:
- Vague or missing project documentation.
- Claims of “100-year permanence” without an explicit buffer or insurance mechanism.
- Credits being double-sold or resold without clear retirement evidence.
- Over-reliance on one-off claims (e.g., “this one project offsets all your emissions forever”) without a transparent methodology.
- Low-cost credits that lack standard certification or are from unverified small projects with opaque ownership.
Marketplace and vendor considerations
Some reputable marketplaces and providers I’ve seen in the field include Pachama, South Pole, Gold Standard’s marketplace, Ecologi (for small-business subscriptions), and directly through registries like Verra. Each has strengths:
- Pachama focuses on forest carbon and uses remote sensing to monitor permanence.
- Gold Standard often emphasizes sustainable development goals and community co-benefits.
- South Pole offers a mix of project types and full service for corporate clients.
- Ecologi is accessible for small subscriptions and pairs reforestation and community projects, but you should review each project’s documentation.
When engaging a vendor, ask whether they bundle credits (which can hide project-level details) and whether they assist with retirement and public reporting. I prefer working with providers who make project data easily accessible and who will issue retirement certificates in my name or my company’s name.
Sample comparison table
| Criteria | Avoidance (e.g., cookstoves) | Removal (e.g., reforestation) |
|---|---|---|
| Cost per ton | Lower | Higher |
| Permanence | Variable; often permanent if infrastructure endures | Risk of reversal; requires buffers/insurance |
| Additionality | Harder to prove if subsidies exist | Depends on land ownership and policy context |
| Co-benefits | High (health, livelihoods) | High (biodiversity, watershed) |
How I communicate purchases publicly
Transparency is key. If you’re a small business, publish a short note on your site with:
- What you’re offsetting (e.g., last year’s travel emissions),
- How many tons you purchased,
- Project names, registries and serial numbers, and
- Whether credits were retired on your behalf (attach retirement certificates).
That level of clarity builds trust and helps avoid greenwashing accusations.
Final practical tip
Buy a diversified portfolio rather than putting all your budget into the cheapest credit. Split purchases between verified avoidance projects (that deliver near-term benefits) and higher-quality removals (that shore up long-term claims). If you can, set aside a small portion of your budget for emerging, high-quality removals (like verified soil carbon or DAC) even if they’re pricier—those are where credible net-zero strategies need to go over the next decade.
