The voluntary carbon offset market is still recovering from a credibility crisis that started in 2022. Mounting evidence of shoddy accounting — especially in forest carbon projects — cratered buyer confidence and tanked sales. Now, a new report from the Clean Air Task Force asks an uncomfortable question: is the much-hyped biomass carbon removal market heading for the same cliff?
The numbers suggest it should worry. Roughly 88% of all carbon removal credits sold to date are associated with a biomass project, according to CDR.fyi. Biomass-based methods — from biochar to bioenergy with carbon capture (BECCS) — tend to produce more plentiful and affordable credits than alternatives like direct air capture. That makes them the backbone of the entire CDR market.
25 Protocols, Zero “Exemplary” Scores
CATF researchers assessed 25 certification protocols used by the major carbon removal registries. They evaluated each against 18 criteria, covering uncertainty measurement, indirect emissions accounting, co-product allocation, carbon monitoring, and reversal safeguards.
The results weren’t pretty:
- Zero protocols scored “exemplary”
- Seven were deemed “satisfactory”
- Twelve scored “weak”
- Six came in “very weak”
- Zero scored “fundamentally flawed” either — which is actually the good news
The researchers originally tied scores to specific registries. When those registries found out, they “vehemently rejected the findings.” Shortly after, CATF anonymized the results.
The Co-Product Problem
One of the thorniest challenges is how to account for co-products. Many biomass projects don’t just remove carbon — they also produce energy, heat, or other materials. An ethanol plant retrofitted with carbon capture, for example, produces both fuel and carbon removal. How you divide the emissions between those two outputs dramatically changes the carbon math.
Most protocols agree that purpose-built removal projects and multi-product facilities should be treated differently. But they disagree on exactly how. That disagreement creates inconsistency across the market — and inconsistency is how accounting scandals start.
The Window Is Still Open
Here’s the thing that makes this different from the forest carbon debacle: most biomass CDR credits sold so far are pre-orders for future projects. The projects haven’t delivered certified credits yet. That means there’s still time to fix the protocols before the credits actually hit the market.
“We wanted to look under the hood of this approach to CDR while it’s in this early stage of development to help ensure that as it scales, there are robust standards,” Kathy Fallon, CATF’s director of land systems, told Heatmap News.
The researchers were actually somewhat optimistic. Compared to the forest carbon protocols CATF assessed last year — where almost none were strong enough to ensure the credits delivered their promised climate benefits — biomass CDR protocols are in relatively better shape.
Why This Matters
Carbon removal needs buyer trust to scale. Full stop. The traditional offset market proved that once trust breaks, it takes years to rebuild — and the carbon removal industry can’t afford that delay. Biomass is the dominant pathway for CDR credits right now. If its accounting crumbles, it doesn’t just hurt biomass projects. It poisons the well for DAC, enhanced weathering, ocean CDR, and everything else.
The CATF report is essentially a roadmap: here are 18 things your protocols should get right, here’s how far you’ve come, and here’s what still needs work. Whether the registries treat it as a gift or a threat will tell us a lot about whether this industry is serious about getting it right.