[exp1orer]

a few clarifications (in the industry but not involved with this deal):

* carbon removal credits are a subset of carbon credits

* they are generally considered higher-quality than most other credits (which are "avoided emissions"). This is because, for example, turning on a direct air capture machine, is clearly something that would not happen without the sale of carbon credits.

* there's not always a clear line between carbon removal credits and non-removal (ie "avoided emissions").

* unfortunately the carbon credits that have come under the most fire (nature-based solutions like forestry) are also, technically, closer to being "carbon removal" -- and some sellers play up that ambiguity, to their advantage.

[kisamoto]

Although most in the CDR industry don't refer to their negative emissions tonnage as 'credits'.

Continuing the DACS example, they are not issuing 'carbon credits' that are verified by Verra or Gold Standard. There is no existing standard for verifying removals.

I would say the majority of the CDR industry is trying to distance themselves from the term 'credit' as it implies a 1:1 relationship however reductions and removals just can't be seen as the same.