Canada is exploring a new policy framework that could let Canadian companies participate in international carbon markets by trading internationally transferred mitigation outcomes (ITMOs).

The federal government announced the initiative on September 24, saying an ITMO framework could attract investment into Canadian climate projects, expand demand for carbon removal and nature-based solutions, and create new export opportunities for Canadian companies.

The move comes as international carbon markets develop under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. At the same time, countries and companies are looking for ways to finance emissions reductions and carbon removals as they work toward net-zero targets.

For Canada, the opportunity is particularly significant because the country combines large natural resources, geological storage capacity, clean electricity and established expertise in energy and industrial infrastructure.

Canada’s Emissions Create a Large Decarbonization Challenge

Canada still has a substantial emissions-reduction challenge.

The country emitted about 685 million metric tons (Mt) of greenhouse gases in 2024, excluding emissions and removals from the land-use, land-use change and forestry sector. That was down 0.3% from 2023 and 10.3% below 2005 levels.

Oil and gas remained Canada’s largest source of emissions. The sector accounted for 208 Mt in 2024, although emissions have declined from their 2014 peak. Electricity emissions have fallen much more sharply, dropping 57% between 2005 and 2024 as Canada reduced coal-fired generation.

• Canada’s government projects that emissions could fall to 600 Mt by 2030 under its “With Measures” scenario. Under a more ambitious “With Additional Measures” scenario, emissions could reach 546 Mt by 2030.

These figures show why Canada will need a combination of emissions reductions, carbon removal and other climate solutions to reach net zero.

An international market could provide another source of capital for some of those activities.

What Are ITMOs and Why Do They Matter?

ITMOs are internationally transferred mitigation outcomes created under Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement.

In simple terms, one country can authorize the transfer of an emissions reduction or removal to another country under a cooperative approach. The receiving country can then use the mitigation outcome toward its climate target, subject to the applicable Article 6 accounting rules.

The system is designed to prevent the same emissions reduction from being counted toward the climate targets of both countries. This process, known as a corresponding adjustment, is central to maintaining the environmental integrity of international transfers.

Canada’s proposed framework would establish how these transfers could operate in the Canadian context.

The government said it will work with provinces and territories, Indigenous organizations and other stakeholders while developing the potential framework. It also said any ITMO trading would have to follow Article 6 rules, including requirements related to additionality, verification, permanence and avoiding double counting.

International Carbon Markets Are Expanding

Canada is considering the framework as carbon pricing and carbon-credit systems expand globally.

The World Bank’s 2026 State and Trends of Carbon Pricing report found that 87 carbon-pricing policies were operating worldwide, seven more than the previous year. Direct carbon pricing now covers nearly 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions, while carbon pricing generated more than $107 billion in public revenue in 2025.

The broader carbon-credit market is also attracting investment. The World Bank estimates that annual capital committed to future carbon-credit projects ranged from $12 billion to $16 billion in 2025.

The estimated annual value of traded carbon credits was about $535 million in 2024, although this figure covers a narrower segment of the overall carbon market than carbon taxes and emissions trading systems.

The growth opportunity extends beyond today’s market.

The World Bank’s international carbon-market research has highlighted the potential for carbon markets to mobilize climate finance, particularly where domestic public funding cannot cover the investment needed for emissions reductions and removals.

Other market research has projected that voluntary carbon-credit demand could grow several-fold by 2030, while the World Bank’s Emission Reduction Program has cited estimates of a $10 billion to $40 billion voluntary carbon market by 2030 under one industry scenario.

This expanding market could create opportunities for countries that can supply credible emissions reductions and carbon removals.

Canada Sees Carbon Removal as an Economic Opportunity

Carbon removal is one area where Canada could potentially benefit from international demand.

• Carbon Removal Canada has estimated that a large-scale domestic carbon removal industry could generate significant economic activity by 2050.
• Its earlier modelling suggested that a Canadian industry capable of removing more than 300 Mt of CO₂ annually could create more than 330,000 jobs and add about $143 billion to GDP.
• More recent modelling from the organization estimates that carbon removal could add $78 billion to Canada’s annual GDP by 2050 and create or support about 300,000 jobs.

Canada has several resources that could support this expansion. These include geological formations suitable for CO₂ storage, clean electricity, agricultural and forestry resources, industrial infrastructure and a workforce with experience in engineering, energy and large-scale construction.

Carbon removal technologies such as direct air capture and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage could therefore become part of Canada’s emerging clean-technology export industry.

• MUST READ: Canada’s $600M Carbon Pricing Deal Signals a New Push for Carbon Capture

ITMOs Could Bring More Capital Into Canadian Projects

The proposed ITMO framework could give developers another potential route to monetize verified emissions reductions and removals.

For example, a Canadian project could generate an eligible mitigation outcome, receive the required authorization, and transfer it internationally under an Article 6.2 agreement. Revenue from that transfer could help support project development and potentially improve the economics of technologies that remain expensive at early stages.

Nature-based projects could also benefit if they meet the requirements.

However, international transfers require more than simply creating a carbon credit. Countries need systems to authorize activities, track units, report transactions, and apply corresponding adjustments. These requirements are intended to ensure that a transferred mitigation outcome is not counted twice.

That accounting framework could also provide greater certainty for investors and buyers.

Canada Wants to Turn Climate Technology Into an Export Opportunity

The Honourable Julie Dabrusin, Minister of the Environment, Climate Change and Nature, said international ITMO trading could help Canadian companies attract capital and expand climate technologies.

She quoted:

“The trading of ITMOs under the Paris Agreement can unlock greater global climate action by making it easier to transfer emission reductions and removals between countries. This is about turning our natural advantages and homegrown climate innovation into investment, good jobs, and new export opportunities. A clear framework for international carbon credit transfers can help Canadian companies scale, attract capital, and bring more innovative technologies to market, strengthening our position as a leader in the global clean economy.”

$13 Billion in International Climate Finance

The government is also linking the initiative to more than $13 billion in international climate finance announced through the Spring Economic Update.

For Canada’s carbon market, the proposed framework could therefore represent more than a new trading mechanism. It could connect Canadian climate projects and technologies with international sources of demand and finance.

The framework is still under development, and its final rules will determine which projects and mitigation outcomes can participate. Canada will need to balance market access with rigorous accounting and environmental safeguards as it develops the system.

If implemented, the framework could give Canadian carbon removal developers, technology companies, and nature-based projects another potential pathway into the growing international market for emissions reductions and removals.

• RECENT: Canada Investment Summit 2026: Can $1 Trillion Drive a Critical Minerals Mining Boom? 

The post How Canada’s New ITMO Framework Could Unlock International Carbon Markets appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Disseminated on behalf of Sierra Madre Gold & Silver Ltd.

Silver has had a volatile 2026. It has pulled back sharply from its 2026 peak. The metal reached a 52-week high of about $115 per ounce in January before falling sharply during the year. 

By mid-September, silver futures had dropped to about $63 per ounce, roughly 45% below that peak. Prices later recovered to around $66.70 by September 18.

That move highlights an important shift for silver producers. The market is no longer simply a story of rising prices. Producers now have to operate through a much wider price range while managing costs, production growth, and capital spending.

The decline has changed the operating backdrop for silver producers, but the underlying supply picture remains tight.

According to the World Silver Survey 2026, global silver mine production increased 3% in 2025 to 846.6 million ounces. Recycling added another 197.6 million ounces. Yet, total demand reached 1.13 billion ounces, leaving the market with a 40.3 million-ounce deficit, the fifth consecutive annual shortfall.

Metals Focus expects another deficit in 2026, estimated at 46.3 million ounces. That backdrop matters for Sierra Madre Gold & Silver as it moves from restarting one mine to building a larger production base.

The changing silver price environment, therefore, tests the company’s strategy: how does an operating producer manage growth when the commodity price can move sharply in either direction?

Silver’s 2026 Rally Gives Way to a Sharp Reset

Silver entered 2026 at elevated levels after a strong run in late 2025 and early 2026, but it significantly dropped this month. The decline was not driven by one factor alone.

Higher U.S. Treasury yields, a stronger dollar, and changing expectations for Federal Reserve policy have affected precious metals. Silver can also experience larger price swings than gold because it combines investment demand with industrial uses.

Recently, silver had recovered to over $66 per ounce. That rebound, however, does not erase the earlier decline. Instead, it shows why mining companies must plan around changing commodity prices rather than rely on a single price environment.

For Sierra Madre, that distinction matters because the company is already generating revenue from an operating mine.

La Guitarra Is Already Generating Silver Revenue

La Guitarra is no longer simply a development project. Sierra Madre restarted commercial production at the Mexican mine on January 1, 2025. The operation includes an underground mine and a processing plant that previously operated at 500 tonnes per day.

Moreover, the company reported 66,691 ounces of silver sold in Q2 2026, compared with 65,683 ounces in the same quarter of 2025.

The mine generated US$25 million of revenue and US$8.9 million of gross profit in 2025, its first full year back in production.

In the first half of 2026, La Guitarra generated another US$18.3 million of revenue and US$3.5 million of adjusted EBITDA. Sierra Madre also repaid its US$5 million First Majestic loan in July and ended June with US$22.2 million in cash and US$25 million in working capital.

The company received US$75.65 per silver-equivalent ounce sold in Q2 2026, compared with US$33.22 a year earlier.

Those figures show the effect that higher realized metal prices had on revenue. But they also highlight why future results cannot simply be extrapolated from the second quarter.

The spot and futures market has since moved below the $75.65 realized silver price reported for Q2. If lower prices persist, the company could face lower revenue per ounce even as production increases. That makes the production ramp-up increasingly important.

That higher realized price helped offset higher costs during a development-heavy quarter.

Sierra Madre reported all-in sustaining costs of US$54.73 per ounce produced, up from US$32.54 a year earlier. The company attributed the increase to development ore, lower recoveries, power outages, a stronger Mexican peso, and higher royalties.

The cost increase shows why the silver price pullback matters. Higher metal prices can support revenue and margins, but production growth can also bring temporary cost pressure.

SEE MORE: Sierra Madre: Breathing New Life into Mexico’s Silver and Gold Heartland

Sierra Madre Pushes La Guitarra Toward Higher Throughput

Sierra Madre is working to increase processing capacity at La Guitarra. The first phase is expected to bring capacity to about 750–800 tonnes per day, with the company expecting the expansion to come online before the end of Q3 2026. 

• A second phase is planned to increase capacity to 1,200–1,500 tonnes per day by Q3 2027.

The company reported that throughput had reached as high as 672 tonnes per day in August, as it continued to ramp up the operation. This timing matters.

Higher throughput can increase the number of ounces produced and sold, although the actual financial benefit will depend on factors including grades, recoveries, operating costs, capital requirements and the silver and gold prices received.

Sierra Madre reported Q2 2026 cash costs of $49.28 per silver-equivalent ounce produced, compared with $26.89 in Q2 2025. Its all-in sustaining cash cost was $54.73 per silver-equivalent ounce, versus $32.54 a year earlier.

The company said it expects higher production from the expansion, along with a reduction in costs as the operation scales up. That makes the next stage of the ramp-up particularly important in a lower-price environment.

Del Toro Adds Another Mexican Silver Asset

Sierra Madre added a second permitted silver mine to its portfolio in June 2026 with the acquisition of the Del Toro Silver Mine in Zacatecas, Mexico.

The company closed the deal with First Majestic Silver on June 22, 2026. First Majestic previously operated Del Toro from 2013 to 2019 and invested about US$175 million to build the operation.

The site includes three underground mines — San Juan, Perseverancia and Dolores — with more than 60 kilometres of underground development. It also has a 3,000-tonne-per-day flotation circuit and about 3,650 tpd of installed mill capacity.

Del Toro has a production history. It averaged 2.54 million silver-equivalent ounces per year from 2015 to 2018 under First Majestic.

Sierra Madre plans to restart the mine at a smaller scale. The company expects to spend about US$10 million initially, targeting 800 tpd, with a potential increase to 1,600 tpd. The restart is targeted for mid-2027, with production expected to begin in mid-2028.

Exploration will also be important. Sierra Madre has identified 23 deposits at Del Toro and plans about 30,000 metres of diamond drilling at a cost of roughly US$12 million.

A 2020 historical estimate reported 7.57 million silver-equivalent ounces of measured and indicated material and 11.18 million ounces of inferred material. These figures are historical and are not current mineral resources. 

Sierra Madre plans new drilling and resource modelling to establish an updated resource.

The acquisition gives the company another developed Mexican silver asset with existing infrastructure, past production and exploration upside, while the company continues expanding La Guitarra.

Mexico Matters to the Silver Supply Story

Del Toro also places Sierra Madre in one of the world’s most important silver-producing countries.

Mexico produced 172.9 million ounces of silver in 2025, down 5% from 181.1 million ounces in 2024. Still, it remained the world’s largest silver-producing country and accounted for about 20% of global mine supply.

That makes Mexico an important part of the global supply story, while Zacatecas itself has a long history of silver production.

The Katusa Research report notes that roughly half of global silver production comes from Latin America, with Mexico accounting for about one-fifth of global output.

Sierra Madre’s strategy therefore combines existing Mexican infrastructure with a market where new supply remains difficult to bring online quickly.

Lower Silver Prices Put More Focus on Mine Execution

The silver pullback changes the economics of new production, even if the longer-term supply deficit remains. For Sierra Madre, the key issue is no longer simply whether silver prices are rising. The company now has to execute two different stages of growth.

La Guitarra needs to increase throughput while bringing costs under control. Del Toro needs to move through drilling, resource definition, mine planning, and restart work before it can contribute production.

The company is therefore entering a more demanding phase. The next stage of Sierra Madre’s story will depend on how efficiently it converts existing infrastructure, resources, and permits into production.

For now, La Guitarra provides an operating base while Del Toro offers a second potential source of growth. The silver price has pulled back, but Sierra Madre’s production strategy is moving forward. 

• MUST READ: Most Silver Juniors Are Still Drawing Pictures. This One Is Shipping Concentrate.

DISCLAIMER
New Era Publishing Inc. and/or CarbonCredits.com (“We” or “Us”) are not securities dealers or brokers, investment advisers, or financial advisers, and you should not rely on the information herein as investment advice. Sierra Madre Gold and Silver Ltd. (“Company”) made a one-time payment of $25,000 to provide marketing services for a term of one month. None of the owners, members, directors, or employees of New Era Publishing Inc. and/or CarbonCredits.com currently hold, or have any beneficial ownership in, any shares, stocks, or options of the companies mentioned.

This article is informational only and is solely for use by prospective investors in determining whether to seek additional information. It does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. Examples that we provide of share price increases pertaining to a particular issuer from one referenced date to another represent arbitrarily chosen time periods and are no indication whatsoever of future stock prices for that issuer and are of no predictive value.

Our stock profiles are intended to highlight certain companies for your further investigation; they are not stock recommendations or an offer or sale of the referenced securities. The securities issued by the companies we profile should be considered high-risk; if you do invest despite these warnings, you may lose your entire investment. Please do your own research before investing, including reviewing the companies’ SEDAR+ and SEC filings, press releases, and risk disclosures.

It is our policy that information contained in this profile was provided by the company, extracted from SEDAR+ and SEC filings, company websites, and other publicly available sources. We believe the sources and information are accurate and reliable but we cannot guarantee them.

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT AND FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

Certain statements contained in this news release may constitute “forward-looking information” within the meaning of applicable securities laws. Forward-looking information generally can be identified by words such as “anticipate,” “expect,” “estimate,” “forecast,” “plan,” and similar expressions suggesting future outcomes or events. Forward-looking information is based on current expectations of management; however, it is subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated.

These factors include, without limitation, statements relating to the Company’s exploration and development plans, the potential of its mineral projects, financing activities, regulatory approvals, market conditions, and future objectives. Forward-looking information involves numerous risks and uncertainties and actual results might differ materially from results suggested in any forward-looking information. These risks and uncertainties include, among other things, market volatility, the state of financial markets for the Company’s securities, fluctuations in commodity prices, operational challenges, and changes in business plans.

Forward-looking information is based on several key expectations and assumptions, including, without limitation, that the Company will continue with its stated business objectives and will be able to raise additional capital as required. Although management of the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated, or intended.

There can be no assurance that such forward-looking information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. Additional information about risks and uncertainties is contained in the Company’s management’s discussion and analysis and annual information form for the year ended December 31, 2025, copies of which are available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.

The forward-looking information contained herein is expressly qualified in its entirety by this cautionary statement. Forward-looking information reflects management’s current beliefs and is based on information currently available to the Company. The forward-looking information is made as of the date of this news release, and the Company assumes no obligation to update or revise such information to reflect new events or circumstances except as may be required by applicable law.

For more information on the Company, investors should review the Company’s continuous disclosure filings available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.

Disclosure: Owners, members, directors, and employees of carboncredits.com have/may have stock or option positions in any of the companies mentioned: None.

Carboncredits.com receives compensation for this publication and has a business relationship with any company whose stock(s) is/are mentioned in this article.

Additional disclosure: This communication serves the sole purpose of adding value to the research process and is for information only. Please do your own due diligence. Every investment in securities mentioned in publications of carboncredits.com involves risks that could lead to a total loss of the invested capital.

Please read our Full RISKS and DISCLOSURE here.

The post Silver Falls 45% From Its 2026 Peak as Sierra Madre Scales Up Production appeared first on Carbon Credits.

More than 700 companies have now committed to reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2040 through The Climate Pledge, but the rapid growth of corporate climate action is running into a major global challenge: there is still not enough clean energy capacity being built to meet the world’s 2030 renewable target.

The Climate Pledge’s 2026 report counted 705 signatories across 49 countries and territories and 62 industries. The combined revenue of the companies is about $3.8 trillion. The current Climate Pledge website now lists 728 signatories.

At the same time, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) says the world added a record 692 gigawatts (GW) of renewable power capacity in 2025, bringing total renewable capacity to 5,149 GW.

That is strong growth, but it is still below the pace needed to triple global renewable capacity by 2030. The gap matters for companies trying to cut emissions because corporate demand for clean electricity is growing faster than renewable supply in many markets.

Climate Pledge Companies Are Turning Net-Zero Targets Into Action

The new Climate Pledge report provides some evidence that corporate commitments are translating into action.

Among 119 signatories analyzed in the report, representing about 90% of publicly available signatory revenue, operational carbon emissions fell by an average of 11% between the measured periods. That compares with a 7% average decline among other companies in the dataset.

The median reduction among the analyzed signatories was even higher at 21%. Three out of four companies reduced emissions from their direct operations and purchased energy. 

The biggest reduction came from Scope 2 emissions, which fell by an average of 35%. These are emissions linked to purchased electricity, heat, steam, and cooling. Renewable energy procurement was a major reason for that decline.

By comparison, Scope 1 emissions fell 4% on average. These come directly from company operations, including fuel use and industrial processes.

That difference highlights a major issue for the next stage of corporate decarbonization. Buying more renewable electricity can reduce power-related emissions, but cutting emissions from factories, fleets, buildings and industrial processes is often harder. 

Angel Hsu, Associate Professor and Founder of the Data Driven Envirolab at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, wrote:

“Through the Net Zero Tracker, we spend our time scrutinizing whether corporate climate commitments are credible and actually hold up over time. What’s encouraging in the data is how many companies are not only staying the course, but in many cases strengthening their targets over time while backing them with measurable progress. That continued commitment is what turns a net-zero claim into a credible plan.”

Renewable Power Is Growing at Record Speed 

Global renewable deployment is nevertheless moving quickly. IRENA reports that 692 GW of renewable capacity was added in 2025, a 15.5% increase from the previous year. Renewables accounted for 85.6% of all new power capacity added globally.

Solar dominated the expansion, with about 511 GW added. Wind contributed another 158.7 GW. Together, solar and wind made up 96.8% of net renewable additions.

• Renewables now represent about 49% of global installed power capacity, according to IRENA. 

The economics are also improving. IRENA says more than 85% of new renewable projects are now cheaper than fossil-fuel alternatives, while the cost of solar power has fallen 87% since 2010, onshore wind by 55%, and battery storage by 93%. 

The market is therefore no longer simply waiting for renewable technology to become competitive. The bigger challenge is deploying it fast enough and connecting it to consumers.

• SEE MORE: Tesla (TSLA Stock) Expands Renewable Energy Strategy with Landmark Solar and Battery PPAs

The World Still Has a 2030 Renewable Capacity Gap

At COP28, countries agreed to work toward tripling global renewable power capacity by 2030. IRENA estimates this means reaching about 11.2 terawatts (TW) by 2030. To get there, the world needs average annual additions of about 1,122 GW between 2025 and 2030, with renewable capacity growing about 16.6% a year. 

The 692 GW added in 2025 was therefore about 430 GW below that annual average pace. Put another way, 2025 deployment reached only about 62% of the average annual capacity addition needed to stay on the tripling path.

IRENA’s latest data also shows that deployment remains highly concentrated. China, the United States and the European Union accounted for 79.5% of all new renewable capacity added in 2025, while Africa accounted for only 1.6%.

That imbalance is a major concern for companies operating across emerging markets, where access to renewable electricity can remain limited even as corporate climate targets become more demanding. 

Grids and Finance Are Becoming the Bottlenecks

The renewable gap is not simply a question of building more solar panels and wind turbines. IRENA’s 2026 analysis points to several practical barriers, including:

• Grid capacity,
• Energy storage,
• Permitting,
• Financing, and
• Supply chains.

Grid upgrades are especially important because solar and wind projects can be built faster than new transmission and distribution infrastructure. This creates a growing problem for companies.

A business can have a target to use 100% renewable electricity, but achieving it depends on whether suitable projects exist in the markets where it operates and whether the grid can deliver the required power.

The Climate Pledge report reflects that challenge. Its signatories reduced purchased-energy emissions much faster than direct operational emissions, showing that renewable procurement can move relatively quickly while harder industrial reductions take longer.

That is why corporate demand can play an important role in the renewable market. Long-term power purchase agreements and other procurement contracts can provide developers with predictable demand and help projects secure financing.

Corporate Demand Could Boost Carbon Markets

The Climate Pledge is relevant to the carbon market as well. Its members commit to measure and report emissions, reduce them through operational changes and clean energy, and neutralize remaining emissions with additional, quantifiable, real and permanent offsets. 

Yet, that does not mean all 700-plus companies will rely heavily on carbon credits. The framework puts direct emissions cuts first. But as companies reduce their operational emissions, the remaining emissions become harder to eliminate. That could increase demand for high-quality carbon removals and other credible climate projects over time.

The Climate Pledge report estimates that if its signatories collectively reach net zero, they could eliminate at least 2.6 billion metric tons of CO2e annually. The organization says this is roughly equivalent to one-third of the carbon absorbed by the world’s forests each year.

This is a projection, not a measured reduction already achieved, and the report notes that emissions overlaps between companies mean it should not be treated as a simple absolute emissions reduction. That distinction is important when assessing the real market impact.

The Next Decade Will Test How Fast Markets Can Scale

The two new data sets point to the same market challenge from different directions. Corporate climate commitments are expanding quickly. The Climate Pledge added 107 companies in 2025, a 19% increase from 2024. Signatories now span dozens of industries, including sectors that are difficult to decarbonize. 

Renewable power is also expanding at record levels, but the world still needs much faster deployment to reach the 2030 tripling goal. For companies, this creates both a challenge and a business opportunity.

More renewable capacity, stronger grids and better storage can make corporate emissions targets easier to deliver. Long-term corporate demand can, in turn, help finance new clean energy projects. The key issue is timing.

The Climate Pledge gives companies until 2040 to reach net zero, while the global renewable tripling target arrives in 2030. That leaves only a few years to close the renewable deployment gap. The latest numbers show progress, but they also show how much more infrastructure must be built.

The corporate climate market is growing. The renewable market is growing even faster. However, neither is moving fast enough to close the gap between today’s commitments and the clean energy system needed to meet them.

• READ MORE: Climate Week NYC: Renewable Supply Gaps Grow as States Push Carbon Removal

The post 700+ Companies Commit to Net Zero by 2040, But Renewable Growth Still Falls Short appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Verra’s carbon capture and storage (CCS) methodology has been approved by the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) under its Core Carbon Principles (CCPs).

The approval adds a major technology-based carbon removal method to the growing list of methodologies that meet the ICVCM’s high-integrity requirements.

Mandy Rambharos, CEO of Verra, says:

Inside Verra’s VCS Methodology VM0049 

Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) methodology VM0049 Carbon Capture and Storage, v1.0, sets rules for measuring greenhouse gas emission reductions and carbon dioxide removals from projects that capture CO₂ and store it permanently.

The framework also includes modules for direct air capture (DAC), CO₂ transport, CO₂ storage and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS).

The approval comes at an important time for the voluntary carbon market. Buyers are paying more attention to whether carbon credits represent real and lasting climate benefits. For CCS projects, this is especially important because capturing CO₂ is only one part of the process.

Projects must also account for emissions from energy use and transportation and show that the captured CO₂ will remain safely stored.

Why ICVCM Approval Matters

The ICVCM created the Core Carbon Principles to set a common standard for high-quality carbon credits.

The organization reviews carbon-crediting methodologies to determine whether they meet requirements designed to support credible climate benefits.

This process matters for CCS because these projects can involve several stages and technologies. A project may capture CO₂ at an industrial facility, move it through a pipeline, and then store it deep underground.

Each stage can create emissions or other risks that need to be measured.

As explained before, VM0049 provides rules for accounting for these activities. It is designed to calculate the emissions reductions and carbon removals linked to eligible CCS projects.

Thus, the ICVCM approval gives the methodology an additional credibility signal in the carbon market.

However, the approval applies to the methodology, not automatically to every project using it. Individual projects still need to meet the relevant VCS requirements and verification rules.

That distinction is important as companies look for higher-quality carbon removal credits.

One Framework Covers Several Technologies

One of the main features of VM0049 is its modular design.

Instead of requiring a completely separate methodology for every type of CCS project, Verra created a main framework that can work with different modules.

The approved modules include:

• VMD0056: Direct air capture
• VMD0057: CO₂ transport
• VMD0058: CO₂ storage
• VMD0059: Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)

This approach gives project developers more flexibility.

For example, a project could capture CO₂ at one location, transport it through a shared pipeline, and store it at a separate geological site. Multiple facilities could also potentially use the same transportation or storage infrastructure.

The framework can also support projects as they grow or add new technologies.

VM0049 has been active since June 2024 and can be used for eligible projects involving geological carbon storage around the world. The methodology was developed by the CCS+ Initiative, South Pole Carbon Asset Management and Perspectives Climate Group, with support from Verra.

Energy Use Is Also Important

Carbon capture can require large amounts of energy. Therefore, the source of that electricity matters when calculating the overall climate benefit of a project.

VM0049 includes specific requirements for projects that use renewable electricity.

Projects must show that their renewable electricity comes from newly developed renewable sources dedicated to the CCS project. They cannot simply rely on existing renewable generation and assume that the power has no additional climate impact.

This requirement is important because the amount of CO₂ captured does not tell the full story.

A project could capture a large amount of carbon but still have significant emissions from the energy needed to operate its equipment. A robust methodology therefore needs to look at the project’s wider emissions rather than only the captured CO₂.

CCS Could Support the Growth of Carbon Removal

CCS is becoming an important part of the technology-based carbon removal market.

Direct air capture is one example. DAC systems remove CO₂ directly from the atmosphere. The captured carbon can then be transported and stored underground.

BECCS takes a different approach. It uses biomass-based processes to generate energy or products while capturing the resulting CO₂ and storing it.

Both technologies depend on permanent storage and accurate measurement. This makes clear accounting rules important as the industry moves from small demonstration projects toward larger commercial facilities.

VM0049’s modular approach could help developers use one overall framework for different combinations of capture, transport and storage.

At the same time, the methodology can account for emissions linked to each stage of the process.

What the Approval Means for the Carbon Market

The ICVCM approval gives CCS developers another methodology that has met the organization’s Core Carbon Principles requirements.

For carbon-credit buyers, the approval can make it easier to identify methodologies that have gone through the ICVCM’s integrity assessment.

However, buyers will still need to examine individual projects. Factors such as the technology used, energy source, monitoring system, storage site, and verification process can affect the actual climate benefit of a project.

This will become increasingly important as the carbon removal market expands.

CCS projects are often complex and require significant infrastructure and capital. A clear methodology can help developers measure their climate benefits and give buyers a common framework for evaluating the resulting credits.

The ICVCM approval therefore marks an important step for technology-based carbon removal. It does not remove the need for project-level due diligence, but it gives the market another methodology that has passed an independent integrity assessment.

As more CCS, DAC, and BECCS projects move toward commercial scale, these standards could play an increasingly important role in building confidence in the carbon removal market.

• ALSO READ: Verra Wins ICVCM Approval for VCS Version 5 as Carbon Market Integrity Tightens

The post Verra CCS Methodology Gets ICVCM Approval as Carbon Removal Market Grows appeared first on Carbon Credits.