In the voluntary carbon market, we are told that standards create integrity. But as an observer of this space, I believe they do something more fundamental: they create languages. What does the language a project chooses truly reveal about its philosophy, its audience, and its ultimate impact?
Understanding this is critical for anyone observing the forces shaping the “net-zero” landscape.
The Established Landscape: Verra
Verra is the market’s de facto institution. As the largest and most established registry, founded in 2007, its Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) provides the framework for a vast and diverse portfolio. With thousands of active projects in over 88 countries, it covers everything from forestry and renewable energy to waste management. Crucially, Verra certifies both emission reductions (such as avoided deforestation under REDD+) and carbon removals.
For a project, choosing Verra means entering the largest, most liquid marketplace. It’s the choice for maximum compatibility and scale, allowing access to a wide ecosystem of buyers familiar with its long-standing reputation.
The Focused Challenger: Puro.earth
Puro.earth, founded in 2019, positions itself very differently. It is not a comprehensive registry for all climate projects. Its focus is exclusively on what it terms engineered and durable carbon removal.
This positioning is built on a few key differentiators:
- A Purity Test for Removal. Puro.earth’s standard is designed to certify only the physical removal and long-term storage of CO₂, explicitly avoiding credits for “avoided emissions” or natural baseline growth.
- A High Bar for Permanence. Their methodology requires that the removed carbon is stored for a minimum of 100 years, a clear attempt to address concerns about the durability of sequestration.
- An Aligned Incentive Model. By charging no upfront fees for certificate issuance and only earning revenue when a project’s CO₂ Removal Certificates (CORCs) are sold, Puro.earth argues its incentives are aligned with its suppliers.
For a project, choosing Puro means choosing to be judged by these specific, rigorous metrics. It is a strategic decision to appeal to a segment of the market that prioritizes the verifiable, long-term sequestration of an existing ton of CO₂.
An Observer’s Question: Different Standards or Different Brands?
This divergence forces a critical question: Does this choice truly lead to more credible climate outcomes, or does it simply create different marketing categories for buyers?
The existence of a focused standard like Puro.earth pressures the market to become more sophisticated. It challenges the notion that a “carbon credit” is a generic commodity and forces buyers to ask precisely what they are paying for: Are they funding the prevention of a future emission, or the cleanup of a past one?
However, the true test lies not in the elegance of the standard’s design, but in the on-the-ground results. The frameworks and fee structures are different, but the fundamental pressure to generate and sell credits remains. The risk is that this specialization becomes more about branding and attracting premium prices than about fostering a different class of climate projects.
The future of a credible carbon market, therefore, may depend on a new kind of literacy—the ability to listen past the formal rules and ask what these languages are truly being used to say. Is it to describe a genuine transformation, or to brand a commercial interest?
