Skip to content
Home » Is Carbon Trading Worthwhile In 2023?

Is Carbon Trading Worthwhile In 2023?

2022 will probably be remembered as the year in which carbon finance came to be an issue of discussion in an array of industries.

In the 2022 class of new participants in the voluntary carbon market, oil and gas majors, hedge funds and banks were seen as the most active participants and firmly committing to the market. However, as the year progressed various other industries were also entrants in the market, following their pledges to cut carbon footprints.

A number of political bodies, including the EU as well as for instance, UK or the state of California already have mandatory carbon markets that target specific industrial areas and gas. These forms an essential component of the efforts to achieve the Paris Agreement target of limiting global heating by 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels (with a more ambitious ideal of staying within 1.5 degrees Celsius). 1.5 C increase), even although some of these markets are older than their Paris commitments.

Some sectors have also taken a cue from compliance plans and committed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (GHG) by participating in carbon markets on a voluntary basis.

Carbon markets that are voluntary allow producers of carbon to reduce their unavoidable emissions by buying carbon credits generated by projects targeted at removing or the reduction of GHG out of the atmosphere.

Each credit – which equates to one metric tonne of lessened, avoided or removed CO2 or equivalent GHG – can be used by a corporation or an individual to offset for the emissions from one metric tons of CO2 or similar gases. When a credit is used to offset the emission of gases it will be converted into an offset. It is transferred to a retirement register credits, also known as retirements, and is then no longer tradingable.

Companies can participate in the market for carbon emissions, either in a single transaction or as part of an overall industry-wide plan, like The Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation, which was created by the aviation industry to reduce CO2 emissions. International airline operators taking part in CORSIA have committed to offset all CO2 emissions they generate in excess of a baseline level for 2019.

Although compliance markets are currently limited to specific regions, voluntary carbon credits are significantly more flexible, and are not governed by the boundaries established by nation states or political unions. They also have the potential to be utilized by every sector of the economy instead of a small number of industries.

The Taskforce for scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets which is sponsored by the Institute of International Finance with support from McKinsey estimates that the carbon market credits could amount to upwards 50 billion dollars as soon as 2030.
The participants

Five main players are the carbon market’s engine.


Project developers are an upstream section that makes up the majority of markets. They create the projects that issue carbon credit which range from industrial-scale projects of a large scale, like the hydro plant that has a huge volume of hydro, to smaller community-based ones like cookers that are clean.

There are several projects that aim to eliminate or reduce the direct emissions resulting from industrial processes , such as Ozone-capture, fugitive emission management or destruction of ozone-depleting substances, or wastewater treatment. Projects based on nature comprise REDD+ (avoided deforestation) and soil sequestration, as well as Afforestation. Others include carbon capture by technology such as direct air capture. New categories are continually added.

Every credit comes with a distinct vintage that refers to the year that it was issued, and a specific delivery date in which case the credit will be made available on the market. In addition to their main goal of avoiding or eliminating GHGs from the atmosphere The credit projects could provide additional benefits and help meet certain of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They could, for instance, help improve the quality of life for local residents, improved drinking water, and decrease in economic inequality.

The END Buyers

In the downstream sector, you will find made up of end buyers: companies as well as individual consumers who have made a commitment to offset a portion or all the GHG emissions.

The first buyers of carbon credits was tech companies such as Apple and Google airlines, as well as oil and gas majors, however, more industries, including finance, are entering the market, in order to set their own net-zero goals or are looking for a way to mitigate the financial risk posed by changing energy sources.

The implementation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement on 13 November the UN Climate Conference, or COP26 in Glasgow defined the rules for a crediting scheme that can be utilized by the 193 parties to Paris agreement to meet their targets for emission reductions or to contribute according to their national requirements. The article implementation allows countries to buy voluntary carbon credits as long as Article 6 rules are respected.


To connect demand and supply broker and retail traders, as in other commodity markets. Retail traders purchase large amounts of credit directly from the supplier they then combine those credits into portfolios that range between hundreds and thousands equivalent tonnes of CO2, and then sell those bundles to end-users usually with a commission.

The majority of the transactions are currently happening in private conversations and over-the-counter agreements, certain exchanges are also emerging. One of the biggest exchanges for carbon credits currently are NY-based Xpansiv CBL and Singapore based AirCarbon Exchange (ACX).

Exchanges have been working hard to simplify and speed up the exchange of carbon credits, which are characterized by a a high level of complexity because of the number of factors affecting their price by introducing standard productsthat ensure some of the most basic specifications are followed.

For example, both The Xpansiv CBL along with ACX have created standard products for nature-based credit CBL’s nature-based Global Emission Offset (N-GEO), and ACX’s Global Nature Token. ACX Global Nature Token.

Credit trading that is conducted under these labels are certain to be regulated by specific characteristics such as the type of project that is the basis, a relatively recent period, and a certification from a specific group of standards.

Exchanges’ standardized products – especially those for forward delivery are favoured by financial players who want to buy and hold ahead of growing demand for carbon credit.

End buyers who need to buy credits in order to reduce their emissions tend to prefer non-standardized products, as they are able to investigate the specific characteristic of each underlying project, and ensure the integrity of the credit they purchase and therefore safeguard themselves from allegations of greenwashing.

Often, the exchanges are utilized to settle bilateral agreements that were conducted offscreen. In a market note shared the month of May CBL claimed that an additional number of bilateral deals that were negotiated offscreen were brought in by traders for settlement via the CBL platform.

These deals accounted for a significant portion of volumes of transactions on CBL.


Brokers purchase carbon credits at the expense of a retailer trader, then market them to an end-user typically with a commission.


There is a fifth player that is unique to carbon markets. Standards are organizations, usually non-governmental organizations, which verify that a certain project has met its stated objectives as well as its declared emissions levels.

Standards provide a set of procedures, or standards for every type of carbon-related project. For instance that a reforestation program will have specific guidelines to calculate the carbon dioxide absorption from the forest being planned and therefore the number of carbon credits that it earns over the course of time.

A renewable energy project has a set of guidelines to adhere to when calculating the value by reducing CO2 emissions and carbon credits that are generated over the course of.

Certifications issued by Standards also guarantee certain basic principles or rules for carbon finance’s compliance:

Additionality: The plan should never be legal, a common usage, or financially attractive in the absence of credits revenues.
Don’t overestimate the CO2 emissions reductions should be in line with the amount of offset credits granted for the project. It should also account for any unintentional GHG emissions caused by the project.
Permanence: The effect of the GHG emission reductions should not be in danger of reversal and will result in a long-lasting reduction in emissions.
The exclusive claim is that each tons of CO2 can be claimed one time and must be accompanied by proof of credit retirement after the project’s maturation. Credits become offsets at the time of retirement.
Provide additional social and environmental benefits: Projects should comply with all legal requirements of its jurisdiction and should provide additional benefits that are in line of the U.N. SDGs.

The overlap of roles, bilateral trade

There is a resemblance of roles, which is unique for carbon market.

Many brokers are traders, and many financiers have brokering arms as well as arm for project development.

End buyers may also finance their own carbon project and opt to keep any or all of the credits that are issued to meet their own offsetting needs.

Each of these entities could eventually market credits to a buyer or developer. A developer might arrange to sell them direct. These juxtapositions could influence the pricing, and in the end, affect the transparency of markets.

Pricing from a variety of sources

When a company turns to the voluntary market of carbon as a potential method of compensating for its carbon emissions One of the primary elements it is looking at is the price for carbon credit. By analyzing this information an organization can make a decision on how ambitious it can be when setting its emission reduction target and whether the market for voluntary carbon credits can really help in reaching it.

However an unambiguous value signal on carbon allows those already active within the trading market be sure they’re trading their credit at a price which is comparable to the market value.

But putting a price on carbon credits is far from an easy process, in large part because of the many kinds of credits on the market and the multitude of variables that affect the price.

Carbon credits issued by carbon projects can be of many different kinds and sub-types. The nature of the project is among the primary factors that affect the cost of the carbon credit.

Carbon credits can be divided into two large groups or baskets: avoidance projects (which stop emitting GHGs completely, thereby reducing the amount of GHGs released in the atmosphere) and removal (which eliminates GHGs in the first place from our atmosphere).

The avoidance basket includes not only renewable energy projects , as well as agriculture and forestry emissions avoidance projects. The latter, which are commonly referred to REDD+, help to prevent destruction of wetland and deforestation or use soil management practices for farming to reduce GHG emissions, for instance projects that aim to reduce carbon emissions of cows and beef cattle with different diets.

Cookstove projects, fuel efficiency or the creation of buildings that are energy efficient are included in the avoidance basket and so do projects capturing and eliminating industrial pollutants.

The removal section includes projects to capture carbon from the atmosphere and then storing it. They could be based on nature that use trees or soil for example to remove carbon. Examples are afforestation and reforestation projects, as well as wetland management (forestry and farming). They could also be tech-driven and include technologies like direct air capture or carbon capture and storage.

Credits for removal are typically traded at a premium compared to avoidance credits, not just due to the larger amount of investment required by the underlying project, but also because of the huge demand for this type of credits. They are also considered to be a much more powerful instrument in fighting climate change.

In addition to the nature of the project’s base, the price of trading carbon credits can be dependent on the quantity of credits traded at a time (the higher the volume the cheaper the price usually) as well as the geographical location of the project, its date of birth (typically the older the vintage the cheaper the cost), and the time to deliver.

When the underlying carbon project is also helping to fulfill some of the UN’s SDGs The value of a credit from that project to potential buyers could be greater, and the credit may be sold at a higher price than other kinds of projects.

For example, community-based projects – which are usually very localized and typically created and operated by local groups or NGOs – tend to yield smaller amounts that are carbon-based credits. It is also often more costly to validate them. However, they usually generate higher co-benefits and are able to meet the UN’s SDGs, contributing to an improvement in the quality of life for the local population, better water quality or decrease in economic inequality.

This is why credits generated by community-based projects can be sold at a higher price to projects that don’t meet SDGs like industrial ventures, because they are generally larger and produce large volumes of credits with more easily verified GHG offset potential.

The current carbon markets prices for one carbon credit can vary by a fraction of a cent per one metric ton of CO2 emissions up to $15/mtCO2e and even $20/mtCO2e for afforestation or reforestation projects to $100 or even $300/mtCO2e for tech-based removal projects such as CCS.