Advancing the Voluntary Carbon Market Through Data

The Voluntary Carbon Market has received a lot of criticism over the years for its lack of transparency, quality, and integrity. Why do you still think it plays a key role in the fight against climate change?

‍

The market needed scrutiny, and we have seen positive change since. Methodologies have been updated, measurement technology has evolved to real-time digital monitoring, and verification standards have professionalized. Despite criticism, the market is growing: retired credit volume increased over 20% year-to-date compared to 2024, driven by private buyers investing more per ton. Forward sales of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) quadrupled to over $5 billion in commitments this year. The reason is simple: achieving net zero requires scaled carbon dioxide removal according to the IPCC and frameworks like SBTi. The Voluntary Carbon Market remains the only market where CDR can be reliably traded and the most effective mechanism to funnel private and public capital into climate mitigation. Market-based solutions will only become more important.

‍

In addition to Carbon Credits, your start-up, CEEZER, recently started offering Sustainable Aviation Fuel Certificates  and Energy Attributes Certificates . Why do companies need to look at Climate Performance Assets as a holistic category?

‍

Corporate climate strategies are no longer one-dimensional. A manufacturing company might need carbon removal credits for unavoidable emissions, renewable energy certificates for operations, and Sustainable Aviation Fuel certificates for business travel. Climate Performance Assets encompass all these because net-zero requires orchestrating multiple levers simultaneously. By treating them as an integrated portfolio rather than isolated purchases, companies gain a holistic view, can make strategic tradeoffs with finite resources, and ensure investments genuinely contribute to climate mitigation. The market infrastructure and due diligence processes are similar across these assets, making an integrated approach both more efficient and more credible.

‍

Political momentum on climate change seems to be stagnating. Do you see this reflected in the demand and supply dynamics of the Voluntary Carbon Market?

‍

Contrary to headlines, we are seeing market maturation rather than stagnation. While the political landscape has fragmented, demand is up: the number of corporate buyers globally continues to grow, with Europe and Asia picking up pace. The dynamic has shifted, though. Committed buyers are purchasing higher-quality credits at premium prices, while lower-quality assets are being increasingly phased out. On the supply side, project developers are focusing on carbon dioxide removal and highly additional projects. What has changed most is communication: companies are more hesitant to publicly spotlight climate action, especially in the US, but are quietly advancing behind the scenes. In a paradoxical way, the current market environment is driving continued serious climate action while leading to the phase-out of low-commitment greenwashing.

‍

How are these developments impacting Climate Performance Assets as an asset category in the short to medium term?

‍

Short term, we are in a healthy consolidation phase where quality differentiation drives pricing. High-integrity carbon removal and renewable energy attributes command significant premiums while lower-quality assets exit the market. Medium term, I expect institutional capital to enter more meaningfully as regulatory frameworks stabilize. We are already seeing insurance companies and asset managers explore climate assets for portfolio diversification. The key development will be standardization of contracts and trading infrastructure, enabling these to be treated as a legitimate financial asset category with proper risk assessment and audit trails, similar to how financial reporting evolved. This professionalization is essential for scaled deployment - and this is what we are actively contributing to.

‍

Over the past years, some stock exchanges, most notably in Singapore and South Africa, introduced the first carbon credit trades. Do you think other countries will follow suit – and should they?

‍

The involvement of established exchanges signals legitimacy and improves market integrity, which is positive. Some large exchanges are closely following the market or running pilots. However, we must be thoughtful about commoditization. Not all carbon credits are fungible in the traditional sense - high-quality removal credits differ significantly in methodology, permanence, and monitoring. The critical question is whether exchanges can maintain the nuance needed to differentiate credit quality properly, or whether standardization will erase important distinctions. The framework matters as much as the infrastructure. The goal should be liquidity without losing the ability to separate genuine climate impact from low-quality offsets.

‍

You are a board member of the German Association for Negative Emissions (DVNE). From your experience, how can business and politics better cooperate to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy?

‍

The most effective collaboration happens when politics sets clear, stable frameworks and business demonstrates scalability through transparent data. What is missing in Germany is recognition that carbon removal requires targeted support, similar to what renewables received 15 years ago. We need instruments like contracts for difference or guaranteed offtake agreements to de-risk early CDR investments. Through the DVNE, we are creating dialogue between the technical realities of carbon removal deployment and the policy mechanisms that can accelerate it. Businesses must show what works at scale, and politics must provide the initial support to get nascent but essential technologies past the valley of death. The long-term target of net-zero is shared - market mechanisms should find the most efficient pathways.