Carbon removal policy is accelerating unevenly. As governments gear up for COP30, new compliance frameworks are taking shape, while standards for quality and permanence are tightening in parallel. For companies, this moment calls for action, not observation. Here’s what to expect—and how to buy like the rules already apply.
This post originally appeared on Supercritical’s website.
Author: Mai Bui, Director of Climate Science at Supercritical
What’s changing
Several jurisdictions are integrating carbon removal into their emissions-trading systems (ETS), each on its own timeline.
Japan was the first country to accept engineered carbon dioxide removal (CDR) in its national ETS. The country’s GX-ETS, now in a voluntary trial phase, accepts credits from technologies like bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), direct air capture (DAC), and coastal blue carbon alongside domestic J-Credits for biochar and forestry. The system is designed to transition to a mandatory phase in 2026, signaling that engineered CDR is becoming an integral part of Japan’s long-term climate infrastructure, rather than a voluntary experiment.
In the European Union (EU), issuances of carbon removal credits will begin in 2026, with full integration into the EU ETS planned for after 2030. The United Kingdom (UK) plans to have carbon removal operational in the UK ETS by the end of 2029. Policy design in these markets generally favors engineered approaches such as BECCS, DAC, and biochar.
Elsewhere, Australia, China, and New Zealand already count forestry removals in compliance markets and have signaled interest in expanding into engineered CDR. Brazil is later to the party but gathering momentum: its national ETS cleared approval in late 2024 and is now in design, with a role for carbon removal expected.
Denmark is a leading example, testing dual‑use models which allow domestic carbon removals to be sold as CDR credits on the voluntary market to address corporate targets whilst also supporting Denmark’s nationally determined contribution without double-counting. For businesses, that means high‑quality credits can legitimately contribute to national climate action and corporate net‑zero claims.
Meanwhile, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is set to launch a net‑zero standard at COP30 (November 2025) that defines what a credible decarbonization strategy looks like. Early drafts point to strict permanence criteria of 100 years or more and tighter expectations for monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV). Because the effort aligns with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol and has broad corporate credibility, it could quickly become the default benchmark for companies aiming to future‑proof net‑zero plans—and for suppliers, a clearer basis for investment in high‑integrity removals.
Durability is the direction of travel
Across these policy tracks, the common thread is durability. Policymakers are converging on permanence thresholds in the 100–200-year range. Nature-based solutions risk being sidelined unless new methodologies are introduced.
This tension is playing out in Article 6.4 negotiations. Early drafts pushed permanence rules that would have excluded many nature‑based credits; after pressure from civil society groups, negotiators reopened the text. One emerging solution is using permanence conversion factors, which enable comparisons of CDR methods across different carbon storage timeframes, e.g., decadal vs. century vs. millennia.
What this means for buyers
– Methodologies are converging: Registries are aligning their methods with national frameworks so credits can count in both voluntary and compliance systems. For buyers, that means today’s “high-integrity” credits could become tomorrow’s “compliance-eligible” assets.
– Verification is your responsibility: Registries and regulators approve frameworks, not individual projects. Recent scandals have shown why buyers can’t rely on a label alone. Always confirm data quality, delivery evidence, and audit documentation before you purchase.
– Prices are becoming clearer: Public and compliance markets are starting to reveal real benchmarks. Use that data to budget for long-term procurement and avoid overpaying for under-verified tonnes.
– The rules are catching up: Portfolios built for permanence and traceability will be valuable when regulation arrives. Those chasing cheap offsets will face re-verification or write-downs later.
To navigate these shifts, smart buyers lead with compliance. That means treating CDR as a regulated commodity and keeping documentation and records audit-ready. The smart move now is to buy as if the rules already apply.
What to expect at COP30
COP30 will bring these threads together. The ISO standard is expected to drop, inviting comparisons to SBTi and sparking debate. Article 6.4 will define (or further complicate) how removals are treated under the Paris Agreement. Bilateral agreements will test how removals move across borders, setting early norms for ownership, accounting, and market access.
Perfect alignment won’t land overnight. But the direction is clear: voluntary and compliance markets are moving closer, standards are maturing, and public funding is beginning to flow. For companies willing to engage early, carbon removal delivers more than offsets—it builds differentiation, resilience, and a real stake in shaping the market to come.
