Are Biochar Carbon Credits Reliable? What to Look For in 2026

Biochar carbon credits are getting a lot of attention.

Biochar is increasingly seen as one of the more established ways to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through engineered carbon removal. New certification methods are becoming stricter, major carbon standards are improving their rules, and more buyers are showing interest in carbon removal methods that can store carbon for a long time.

But this raises an important question:

If someone offers you a biochar carbon credit in 2026, how can you know whether that credit truly represents one tonne of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere—or whether the amount of carbon removed has simply been estimated, calculated using models, or counted too generously?

This question matters.

A biochar facility can genuinely remove carbon from the atmosphere. However, just because a project produces biochar does not automatically mean its carbon credits are reliable.

To understand whether a credit can be trusted, you need to look at the entire process:

Where did the biomass come from? → What would have happened to the biomass if the project had not used it? → How was the biochar produced? → How much of its carbon is likely to remain stored for a long time? → What emissions were released during production and transportation? → Where was the biochar used or stored? → Was the project independently checked and verified? → Is there any risk that the same carbon removal will be claimed more than once?

In 2026, these are some of the most important questions to ask before trusting a biochar carbon credit.

Today’s carbon-market standards are placing greater importance on the same key principles: additionality, long-term carbon storage, accurate measurement, transparency, independent validation and verification, and preventing double counting. For example, the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) includes these principles in its Core Carbon Principles, which help identify high-quality carbon credits.

The market is also continuing to change. Verra’s VM0044 methodology for biochar, version 1.2, is active, while a major update to version 2.0 has gone through public consultation in 2026. Puro.earth has also updated its biochar methodology, and its 2025 edition is now included in its methodology library.

So, are biochar carbon credits reliable in 2026?

The most accurate answer is:

Some biochar carbon credits can be highly reliable, but you need to check the evidence for each project before deciding whether its credits can be trusted.

This guide explains exactly what to look for when evaluating the reliability of biochar carbon credits.

What Exactly Is a Biochar Carbon Credit?

Before evaluating a credit, it is important to understand what is actually being counted as a carbon removal.

Biochar is a carbon-rich material made by heating biomass, such as plant material, under conditions where there is very little oxygen. This process is usually called pyrolysis.

As plants grow, they absorb CO₂ from the atmosphere.

Normally, when plant material breaks down naturally or is burned, much of the carbon it contains eventually returns to the atmosphere as CO₂ or other greenhouse gases.

Pyrolysis changes how some of that carbon behaves.

Instead of allowing all the carbon in the biomass to return to the atmosphere quickly, the process turns a portion of it into more stable forms of carbon that can remain stored for a long time.

The resulting biochar can then be added to soil or used in certain products designed to last for a long time.

A carbon removal credit is intended to represent the net climate benefit achieved through this process.

The word net is especially important here.

You cannot simply say:

“We produced one tonne of biochar, so we removed one tonne of CO₂ from the atmosphere.”

The actual calculation must consider how much carbon is stored, the emissions produced during biochar production, transportation, processing, and use, and what would have happened to the biomass if the project had not existed.

For example, the Isometric Biochar Production and Storage Protocol specifically calculates net CO₂ removal by accounting for the CO₂ stored, the removal that would have happened without the project, and the emissions generated by the project itself.

This is why a reliable biochar credit should represent net CO₂ removed from the atmosphere—not simply the amount of biochar produced.

Why Are People Questioning the Reliability of Biochar Credits?

The main concern is not necessarily whether biochar can store carbon.

Scientific research supports biochar as a carbon-removal method that can store carbon for a long time. A 2024 scientific perspective described biochar as a relatively well-developed carbon dioxide removal (CDR) method and highlighted scientific methods that can help assess how long the stored carbon will last.

The bigger question is:

How accurately can a specific project measure the amount of carbon that will remain stored over time, and what happens to the assumptions used to calculate that amount throughout the process?

There are several areas where problems can occur.

1. Not all carbon in biochar stays stored for the same length of time

Biochar contains different types of carbon.

Some carbon breaks down relatively easily.

Other carbon structures are much more resistant to biological and chemical breakdown and can remain stored for much longer.

This means that the total amount of carbon present in biochar is not automatically equal to the amount that can be counted as long-term carbon removal. Projects need to consider how stable the carbon is before deciding how much carbon removal they can claim.

2. The type of feedstock makes a difference

Biochar can be produced from different types of biomass, and the source material can affect the properties of the final product.

For example, wood residues, agricultural residues, manure, sewage-derived materials and other feedstocks can produce biochar with different characteristics.

Because these materials are not the same, their carbon stability and long-term storage potential may also differ. A reliable carbon credit project needs to consider the feedstock it uses rather than assuming that all biochar will perform in the same way.

3. Production conditions also affect carbon stability

The way biochar is produced can influence how much carbon remains stable over time.

Important factors include pyrolysis temperature, how long the material stays at that temperature, the technology used, the moisture content of the feedstock and the overall operating conditions.

Research has repeatedly highlighted the connection between biochar’s physical and chemical properties and how long its carbon can remain stored. These factors are therefore an important part of calculating carbon removal accurately.

4. Producing biochar also creates emissions

A biochar project does not remove carbon without using resources or creating some emissions.

For example, a project may use electricity and fuel, transport biomass from one location to another, dry the feedstock before processing or operate additional equipment during production.

All these activities can contribute to the project’s total emissions.

To calculate the actual climate benefit, these emissions must be included in the carbon accounting. Otherwise, a project could report more carbon removal than it truly delivers after accounting for the emissions generated along the way.

5. The starting situation can change the final result

Imagine that agricultural waste would normally be burned or decompose quickly if a biochar project did not exist.

Converting that waste into biochar could provide a significant climate benefit by storing some of its carbon for a much longer period.

However, the result could be different if the project uses biomass that would already have remained stored or followed another pathway with relatively low emissions.

In that situation, the additional climate benefit from producing biochar might be smaller than the project claims.

This is known as the counterfactual problem. It means that a project must consider what would most likely have happened without it. Without a reasonable comparison, it becomes difficult to determine how much additional carbon removal the project has actually achieved.

6. The same environmental benefit must not be counted or sold more than once

A tonne of carbon removal should not be counted multiple times by different organizations.

For example, the same tonne should not simultaneously be:

Issued as one carbon credit to a buyer.
Claimed as a separate carbon removal by another organization.
Counted toward another climate target.
Reported as an additional removal by another entity.

If the same carbon removal is counted more than once, the reported climate benefit becomes misleading.

This is why registry systems, unique serial numbers for credits, clear retirement records and transparent project documentation are important. They help track each credit, establish who owns the claim and reduce the risk of the same environmental benefit being counted or used more than once.

The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) explicitly identifies double counting—including double issuance, double claiming and double use—as an important carbon credit integrity issue.

The 8 Questions You Should Ask Before Trusting a Biochar Credit

If you remember nothing else from this article, remember these eight questions.

1. Who Certified the Credit?

Start with this question.

Ask:

Which carbon standard or registry issued the credit?

Some examples of established carbon-removal programs and registries include:

Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard
Puro.earth
Isometric
Other carbon standards that follow recognized methodologies

However, knowing the name of a well-known standard is not enough.

Even if a credit comes from a recognized registry, you still need to check the individual project carefully before deciding whether the credit is reliable.

You should be able to find the following information:

The exact methodology used to generate the credit
The version of that methodology
The project’s identification number
The location of the project
The period during which the project can generate credits
The date the credits were issued
The period covered by the project’s monitoring
The validation report
The verification report
The current retirement status of the credit

For example, Verra explains that its registry serves as a central place to find information about carbon projects and their credits. This includes registered projects, issued units, and retired units.

If you cannot trace a credit back to its project and supporting records, treat that as a major warning sign.

2. Would the Project Have Happened Without Carbon Credit Revenue?

This is one of the most important questions to ask when evaluating carbon credits.

Additionality means checking whether a carbon-removal project would have happened anyway without the money it earns from selling carbon credits.

If the project would have gone ahead even without carbon-credit income, the credits may not represent an additional climate benefit created by the carbon market.

Let’s look at two hypothetical facilities.

Facility A

A company produces biochar and sells it as a commercial product.

The business already makes enough money from selling biochar to cover its costs and remain profitable. The company would have operated the facility even if it could not earn money from carbon credits.

In this situation, it is important to question whether carbon-credit revenue actually made any additional carbon removal possible.

Facility B

Another company wants to build a biochar production facility, but the project is not financially attractive without carbon-credit revenue.

The income from selling carbon credits helps make the investment worthwhile and allows the company to move forward with the project.

These two situations raise very different questions about additionality.

Modern carbon methodologies are also moving toward more detailed ways of checking whether projects genuinely need carbon-credit revenue.

For example, Verra’s VM0044 v1.2 became active on June 27, 2025, and introduced an investment-analysis requirement for demonstrating additionality.

The proposed 2026 revision to VM0044 goes further by proposing a project-method approach to demonstrating additionality instead of relying on the previous positive-list approach.

What documents should you request?

Ask the project developer or credit seller to provide:

The additionality assessment
The investment analysis
The financial assumptions used in the assessment
Evidence of how the project was financed
The expected revenue from carbon credits
The project’s financial position without carbon-credit revenue
The project’s financial position with carbon-credit revenue
Evidence supporting the baseline scenario used in the calculations

If the seller cannot clearly explain why the project needed carbon-credit revenue to move forward, do not overlook that problem.

3. Where Did the Biomass Come From?

The source of the biomass can make a major difference to the climate benefits claimed by a biochar project.

A reliable project should be able to answer two basic questions:

What type of biomass was used to produce the biochar?

And:

What would have happened to that biomass if the project had not used it?

Verra’s current VM0044 v1.2 focuses on converting waste biomass at new biochar production facilities. The methodology also sets specific requirements for which types of feedstock can be used.

According to Verra’s FAQ, eligible waste biomass must meet the relevant requirements, including a baseline scenario in which the material would otherwise have been left to decay or burned for purposes other than energy production.

This is important because not every type of biomass provides the same climate benefit when it is converted into biochar.

For example, using waste material that would otherwise have released carbon into the atmosphere can lead to a different carbon-removal calculation from using biomass that already had another productive use.

To understand the project’s actual environmental impact, ask for records showing:

The type of feedstock used
Where the feedstock came from
The quantity of biomass collected
The supplier’s identity
How the biomass was collected
What would have happened to the biomass without the project
The distance the biomass travelled
How the biomass was stored before processing
Its moisture content
The measures used to control contamination

Be careful when a project uses vague descriptions of its feedstock

You may come across statements such as:

“We use sustainable biomass.”

Although this sounds positive, it does not give you enough information to judge the project’s carbon-removal benefits.

The word “sustainable” does not explain the complete carbon-accounting picture.

You need to know exactly what type of biomass was used, where it came from, and what would have happened to it if the biochar project had never existed.

4. How Long Can the Carbon in the Biochar Stay Stored?

This may be one of the most important technical questions when evaluating biochar carbon credits.

Carbon removal is not simply about capturing carbon and putting it somewhere.

The important question is whether that carbon can remain out of the atmosphere for a sufficiently long time.

Biochar contains carbon structures that can remain stable for long periods. However, not all biochar has the same level of stability.

Its long-term performance depends on factors such as the feedstock, production conditions, and the characteristics of the finished material.

Researchers commonly study properties such as the H/Corg ratio, which compares hydrogen and organic carbon in the biochar.

Depending on the methodology and scientific approach, they may also examine:

The O/C ratio
Fixed carbon content
Aromaticity
Random reflectance
The proportion of carbon expected to remain stable over time
Laboratory incubation results
Models used to estimate carbon degradation

Historically, an H/C ratio below 0.7 has been used as an indicator of relatively stable biochar. Lower values, often below 0.4, have been associated with more highly carbonized material.

However, there is an important lesson for anyone buying biochar carbon credits in 2026.

Do not treat the H/C ratio as a magic number.

Recent research has raised concerns about using the H/C ratio as the only measure of biochar permanence.

A 2025 study found that the H/C ratio can sometimes overestimate or underestimate the amount of carbon that is genuinely persistent. This means that relying only on this ratio may not provide a fully accurate picture of how long the carbon will remain stored.

That does not mean the H/C ratio is useless.

It means that buyers should look beyond one laboratory measurement when assessing the long-term stability of biochar.

Ask the project developer:

What other evidence supports the claim that the carbon in this biochar will remain stored for a long time?

Look for a combination of:

Laboratory testing of the biochar
Records showing how the biochar was produced
Information about the feedstock
Details of the production process and operating conditions
Scientific models used to estimate carbon stability
The requirements of the applicable certification methodology
Conservative assumptions used when calculating the amount of carbon that can be credited

The more clearly a project explains its permanence calculations and provides supporting evidence, the easier it becomes to judge whether its carbon-removal claims are reliable.

5. Does the Carbon Calculation Include the Project’s Entire Lifecycle?

A carbon-removal calculation can give a misleading impression if it only measures the carbon stored in the finished biochar.

A proper assessment should consider the greenhouse gas emissions produced throughout the project’s lifecycle.

This may include the following stages:

Feedstock collection → Transportation → Drying and pre-treatment → Pyrolysis → Energy consumption → Biochar processing → Transportation → Final application or storage

For example, a project may store a large amount of carbon in its biochar. However, collecting the biomass, transporting it over long distances, drying it, and operating the production equipment can also generate emissions.

These emissions need to be considered when calculating the project’s actual climate benefit.

Verra’s methodology, for example, includes emissions associated with biomass pre-treatment, conversion, auxiliary energy use, and biochar application. It also requires transportation emissions to be accounted for under specified conditions.

The Isometric protocol similarly uses a cradle-to-grave approach to greenhouse gas accounting, meaning that the assessment considers relevant emissions across the product’s lifecycle.

This matters because the total amount of carbon stored in biochar is not necessarily the same as the amount of carbon removed from the atmosphere after the project’s emissions have been deducted.

Ask the seller two important questions.

First: How much carbon is stored in the biochar before deducting project emissions?

Then ask:

Second: How much net carbon removal remains after accounting for the project’s emissions?

These are two different numbers, and understanding the difference is essential.

A project may report a substantial amount of carbon stored in its biochar, but its actual net removal may be considerably lower once the emissions associated with producing and handling that biochar are included.

As a buyer, you should focus on the net carbon removal, not just the gross amount of carbon stored.

6. Was the Project Independently Verified?

Never assume that having an approved methodology or a certification-related document means every tonne of carbon removal has already been independently verified.

Project validation and project verification serve different purposes.

Verra explains that independent validation and verification bodies, commonly called VVBs, assess projects against the applicable program rules and methodology requirements.

During verification, the VVB checks whether the reported activities and claimed results were achieved and calculated according to the relevant requirements.

Understanding this difference is important when deciding whether a biochar carbon credit is reliable.

Validation asks roughly:

Has the project been designed in a way that can meet the standard’s requirements?

Verification asks:

Did the claimed activities and carbon-removal results actually occur during the monitoring period, and were they calculated correctly?

As a buyer, you should ideally be able to review the reports supporting both processes.

Look for the following information:

The name of the validation and verification body
Evidence of its relevant accreditation or approval
The validation report
The verification report
The monitoring report
Any findings that required corrections
The dates of the relevant assessments
The period covered by the monitoring
The quantity of carbon removal that was verified

Verra’s project process separates validation, project monitoring, verification, and credit issuance into distinct stages.

This means you should not assume that one completed stage automatically proves that every later stage has also been completed.

Before purchasing credits, check which stages the project has actually completed and whether the documents support the specific quantity of credits being offered for sale.

7. Can You Trace the Credit Back to a Real Project?

A reliable biochar carbon credit should not exist only as a number on a seller’s spreadsheet.

You should be able to follow the credit back to the project that generated it and find evidence supporting its issuance.

Ideally, you should be able to trace the following chain:

Project → Production facility → Methodology → Monitoring period → Verification → Issuance → Serial numbers → Retirement

Each step helps you understand where the credit came from, how the carbon removal was assessed, and what happened to the credit afterward.

This is where a public carbon registry becomes especially useful.

For example, Puro.earth’s registry publishes project-level information for listed projects, including the methodology used, crediting period, issued credits, retired credits, and related documentation.

This information helps buyers check whether the credits being offered match the project’s public records.

When evaluating a credit, ask:

How many credits were issued?

How many credits have already been retired?

Which methodology was used to generate them?

Which vintage do they belong to?

Which project and production facility generated them?

The vintage generally refers to the period in which the credited removal or activity occurred, as defined by the applicable program.

Checking this information can help you identify inconsistencies between what the seller claims and what the registry actually shows.

If the seller cannot provide a clear record connecting the credit to its project, verification documents, and registry entry, pause before making a purchase.

A clear and verifiable record is an important part of establishing trust in a carbon credit.

8. Could Someone Else Be Claiming the Same Carbon Removal?

Double counting is another major risk in carbon markets.

It occurs when the same carbon-removal benefit is counted or claimed more than once in a way that makes the climate benefit appear larger than it really is.

Imagine that a biochar project generates 10,000 tonnes of verified carbon removal.

Now suppose:

The project issues 10,000 carbon credits.
Company A claims the climate benefit from all 10,000 credits.
Company B also claims the climate benefit from those same 10,000 credits.
The project or another organization makes an additional, overlapping claim that treats the same removal as its own exclusive benefit.

The result is a serious accounting problem.

The same carbon removal is being used to support multiple claims, making the reported climate benefit misleading.

Credible crediting systems need safeguards to prevent this from happening.

The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) includes requirements in its Core Carbon Principles intended to prevent double counting through double issuance, double claiming, and double use.

As a buyer, you should ask:

Has the credit actually been issued?
Does it have a unique serial number?
Has it already been retired?
Who currently owns the credit?
Who has the right to make a climate claim based on it?
What happens to the credit when I retire it?
Are there safeguards to prevent another organization from claiming the same removal?

A retirement record is particularly important if you intend to make a climate claim based on the credit you purchase.

Retirement records show that a credit has been taken out of circulation for use under the applicable crediting system. However, retirement alone does not automatically establish that every possible climate claim is valid; the wording of the claim and the relevant accounting rules still matter.

Before buying, make sure you understand what the credit represents, who has the right to use it, and how the system prevents the same removal from being counted twice.

If you cannot establish that the credit represents a distinct, traceable carbon-removal claim, do not assume that it provides the climate benefit being advertised.

What Does a High-Quality Biochar Carbon Credit Actually Look Like?

Instead of looking for one “perfect” label, check several important pieces of evidence together.

A reliable project should ideally have:

1. A recognized methodology

The project should follow a clearly explained methodology that is publicly available for anyone to review.

2. Clear information about feedstock sources

You should understand what type of biomass the project uses, where it comes from, and what would have happened to it if the project had not used it.

3. Strong evidence of additionality

The project should show that its carbon removal activities would not have happened in the same way without the support of the carbon credit system, according to the applicable rules.

4. Careful and realistic carbon accounting

The methodology should not treat every possible climate benefit as a guaranteed carbon removal. Only benefits supported by reliable evidence should be counted.

5. Accounting for emissions across the entire lifecycle

The project should consider emissions from production, energy use, processing, and transportation when calculating its net carbon removal.

6. Evidence of long-term carbon storage

The project should provide reliable evidence to support how long the carbon is expected to remain stored.

7. Independent validation and verification

Qualified independent third parties should review the project and check whether its monitoring data and reported results are reliable.

8. Clear tracking through a registry

Each credit should have a clear record showing when it was issued, who owns it, and how its ownership has changed over time.

9. Protection against double counting

The project should have clear safeguards to ensure that the same carbon removal is not sold more than once or claimed by multiple parties.

10. Clear and accessible documentation

A serious buyer should have access to enough project information to review the evidence and understand for themselves whether the carbon credit is reliable.

Why the Methodology Version Matters More Than You Think

One common mistake buyers make is saying:

“It’s a Verra biochar credit.”

But this information alone is not enough.

You also need to know the exact methodology version used for the credit.

For example, Verra’s VM0044 v1.2 became active on June 27, 2025. This version introduced investment analysis to check whether a project meets the additionality requirement. It was also approved by the ICVCM as meeting the requirements of its Core Carbon Principles framework.

However, in 2026, Verra is also working on a major update to this methodology, moving toward VM0044 v2.0.

The proposed update includes several important changes, such as:

Allowing existing facilities to potentially qualify;
Adding more types of eligible feedstock;
Requiring more detailed monitoring;
Measuring additional parameters, such as hydrogen (H);
Including emissions from transporting feedstock;
Adding uncertainty analysis;
Setting requirements for safe storage and transport.

The public consultation took place from July 15 through August 17, 2026. The proposed revision has now moved into the independent expert and validation and verification body (VVB) assessment stages.

This highlights an important point:

Carbon-removal methodologies can change as new scientific evidence and real-world experience become available.

That is why you should always check and record the exact methodology name and version number when evaluating a biochar carbon credit.

Puro.earth vs. Verra vs. Other Carbon-Removal Systems: What Should Buyers Compare?

The question should not simply be:

“Which registry is the best?”

Instead, ask:

“What methods, evidence and verification process are used for this specific credit?”

Puro.earth’s current methodology library includes a 2025 Biochar Methodology, version 2. It describes its biochar pathway as offering a durability category of 200+ years.

Puro.earth’s 2025 methodology update introduced stricter rules for sourcing biomass, improvements for mobile pyrolyzers and an updated durability threshold. It also made changes to the types of uses that qualify for carbon removal credits.

Isometric’s Biochar Production and Storage Protocol follows a different approach. It clearly focuses on careful credit calculations, lifecycle emissions, additionality and independent verification. It also follows an ex-post crediting process, which means credits are issued only after the carbon removal has actually taken place, rather than being issued based on a promise of future removal.

The ICVCM has also approved several biochar methodologies under its Core Carbon Principles, including Verra VM0044 v1.2 and Isometric’s Biochar Production and Storage methodology.

The main point is that a credit does not automatically become reliable just because it comes from a well-known registry.

The methodology and the evidence behind the project still matter.

What Does “200+ Years” Actually Mean?

This is another important detail buyers need to understand before purchasing biochar carbon credits.

For example, suppose a methodology states that a biochar credit has a durability of 200+ years.

This does not mean someone has actually watched that specific tonne of biochar remain unchanged for 200 years.

Of course, that is impossible for a newly created project.

Instead, durability estimates are based on scientific research, the chemical properties of biochar, computer models, experiments, and careful assumptions designed to avoid overstating how long the carbon will remain stored.

Puro.earth currently describes its biochar methodology as offering 200+ years of durability.

However, scientific research also shows that these estimates need to be understood carefully rather than accepted without question.

A 2024 study that brought together 129 biochar decomposition studies found that estimates of how long biochar lasts can change depending on the data selected and the models used. However, the study also found that the H/C ratio remained an important factor in predicting biochar persistence.

This means a responsible buyer should ask one important question before accepting a durability claim:

What exactly does the claimed durability mean?

For example, does it refer to:

a modeled estimate of how long the biochar takes to lose half of its carbon?
the percentage of carbon expected to remain after 100 years?
a durability category defined by the methodology?
a minimum carbon storage period based on conservative assumptions?
an assessment of stability that compares the carbon storage to geological timescales?

These measurements and definitions do not all mean the same thing. Buyers should not treat them as interchangeable when evaluating the reliability of biochar carbon credits.

Does Pyrolysis Temperature Tell You Whether Biochar Is Good?

Not necessarily.

You may hear someone say:

“Our reactor operates at 600°C, so the carbon will remain stored for a very long time.”

But this explanation is too simple.

Temperature is important.

However, temperature alone cannot tell you how long the carbon in biochar will remain stored.

The type of feedstock, how long it stays inside the reactor, the reactor design, heating conditions, and other production factors can all affect the properties of the final biochar.

One research study that examined more than 1,200 biochars found that the type of feedstock had a strong effect on properties such as ash and nitrogen content. The study also found that oxygen and hydrogen levels were closely linked to how much the material had been changed during pyrolysis.

Recent scientific research has also raised concerns about using just one H/C ratio limit to judge whether biochar can store carbon for a long time.

So, rather than asking:

“What temperature does your reactor operate at?”

ask a more important question:

“What test results show that the actual biochar being credited can store carbon for a long time?”

This question helps you look beyond the reactor’s operating temperature and focus on scientific evidence of the biochar’s actual stability.

What About Biochar Used in Soil?

Soil application is one of the most widely discussed ways to use biochar.

The reason is easy to understand.

Biochar can store carbon for a long time while also potentially improving soil conditions. However, these benefits depend on factors such as the type of soil, the raw material used to make the biochar, its properties, and how it is applied.

But soil is a complex environment full of living organisms and changing conditions.

Biochar does not behave the same way in every type of soil.

Its ability to remain in the soil over time can depend on:

the properties of the biochar;
the conditions of the soil;
the local climate;
temperature;
moisture levels;
microbial activity;
how the biochar is applied;
changes that occur as the biochar ages.

Research on biochar aging has shown that natural aging in the field is not exactly the same as aging under artificial or laboratory conditions. More research is still needed to fully understand how biochar behaves over long periods.

Therefore, “applied to soil” should never automatically mean “permanent.”

The project’s methodology should clearly explain how carbon permanence is measured and how it is expected to be maintained over time.

What About Biochar Used in Concrete or Other Durable Products?

Biochar is not used only in agriculture or for improving soil.

It is also being used in new types of products, such as concrete and other building materials that contain biochar.

Verra’s VM0044 methodology specifically includes these newer uses of biochar outside the soil.

However, these uses can store carbon in different ways compared with soil.

They also raise some important questions:

Does the carbon remain safely stored in the material?
What happens to the carbon when the building is demolished?
Is the material recycled and used again?
Could the biochar end up in another waste stream?
Can the carbon still be tracked throughout its entire life?
Does the methodology explain what happens to the carbon at the end of the product’s life?

Once again, simply calling something biochar is not enough.

You need to understand the entire process of how the carbon is stored and what happens to it over time.

Don’t Ignore the Carbon That Happens Before and After Pyrolysis

One of the biggest mistakes when evaluating carbon removal is looking only at the pyrolysis reactor and ignoring the other steps involved.

Consider this simple process:

Biomass → Truck → Storage → Drying → Pyrolysis → Biochar → Truck → Application

Every step in this process can affect the overall climate benefit.

For example:

Transportation can release CO₂ into the atmosphere.
Wet biomass may need extra energy to dry before processing.
Electricity can produce emissions depending on where it comes from.
The pyrolysis process itself may use energy and create emissions.
Transporting biochar to its final destination can also produce emissions.
Storage conditions can affect how much carbon is lost over time.

This is why a reliable methodology must clearly define which emissions are included in the calculations.

Verra’s current methodology specifically considers emissions from biochar production and application. It also includes transportation emissions in certain situations, according to its defined rules.

Scientific studies also show that biochar systems can affect the climate in several ways, including storing carbon, avoiding certain emissions, and changing the amount of non-CO₂ greenhouse gases released.

However, when issuing carbon credits, there is one important question to ask:

Which of these climate benefits does the methodology actually allow you to count toward carbon credits?

Do not assume that every claimed climate benefit or additional environmental advantage is automatically included in the carbon credits issued.

What Are the Biggest Red Flags in 2026?

If you are checking a biochar credit and notice several of these warning signs, take your time before making a decision.

Red Flag #1: “One tonne of biochar equals one tonne of CO₂ removed.”

This is too simple. The actual amount of CO₂ removed depends on several factors, not just the amount of biochar produced.

Red Flag #2: No methodology version

If the seller cannot tell you which methodology and version was used, ask for a clear explanation.

Red Flag #3: No public project documentation

You should be able to find information about the project and check how its results were verified.

Red Flag #4: No additionality analysis

If the project would have happened even without carbon credit funding, there is a clear question about whether it provides additional climate benefits.

Red Flag #5: “Permanent” with no technical evidence

If the seller claims the carbon will stay stored permanently, ask what technical evidence supports that claim.

Red Flag #6: Only an H/C number

One laboratory measurement should not be treated as the only proof that the carbon will remain stored for a long time.

Red Flag #7: No lifecycle emissions calculation

Storing carbon is not automatically the same as removing CO₂ overall. Emissions from the entire process must also be considered.

Red Flag #8: Unclear feedstock

If you cannot find out where the biomass came from or what would have happened to it otherwise, the project’s baseline needs a closer look.

Red Flag #9: No independent verification

Numbers reported by the project itself should not be treated the same as carbon removals checked by an independent third party.

Red Flag #10: Pressure to buy immediately

A trustworthy carbon removal purchase should be backed by clear documents and evidence, not pressure to make a quick decision.

The 2026 Biochar Carbon Credit Due-Diligence Checklist

Before buying or using a biochar carbon credit, ask the seller to provide the following information.

Project details

Project name
Project ID
Country where the project is located
Exact facility location
Name of the project operator
Period during which the project can earn credits

Methodology

Name of the standard used
Name of the methodology followed
Version of the methodology
Conditions the project must meet to use this methodology

Feedstock

Type of material used to make biochar
Where the material comes from
Whether the material is waste or a leftover product
What would happen to the material if it were not used for biochar production
Rules followed to ensure the material is sourced sustainably
Steps taken to prevent contamination

Production

Type of pyrolysis technology used
Conditions under which the production process operates
Temperature used during production
Time the material spends inside the reactor
Amount of biochar produced from the feedstock
Energy used during production
Source of additional energy used in the process

Carbon accounting

Total amount of carbon contained in the biochar
Share of carbon considered stable and eligible for credits
Net amount of CO₂ removed from the atmosphere
Emissions produced throughout the project’s lifecycle
Emissions caused by transporting materials and biochar
Emissions or carbon removals that would occur without the project
Deductions made to account for uncertainty in the calculations

Permanence

H/Corg ratio, which helps assess how stable the biochar’s carbon is
O/C ratio, where required or relevant
Results of other tests used to check carbon durability
Model used to estimate how long the carbon will remain stored
Length of time the carbon storage is expected to last for crediting purposes
Rules for dealing with any loss or reversal of stored carbon

Verification

Name of the body that validated the project
Name of the body that verified the project
Project validation report
Project verification report
Report showing ongoing monitoring results
Date of the latest verification

Registry

Name of the registry where the credits are recorded
Serial numbers assigned to the credits
Number of credits issued
Number of credits retired
Current owner of the credits
Details showing whether and how the credits were retired

Claims

Who has the right to claim the carbon removal?
Has the credit been officially retired?
Can the buyer use the credit to make a carbon removal claim?
Is there any risk that the same carbon removal could be claimed more than once?

If a seller cannot provide clear answers to these questions, you do not yet have enough information to confidently assess the reliability of the biochar carbon credit.

A Simple Way to Score the Evidence Without Relying on a Marketing Label

Instead of simply asking:

“Is this a premium biochar credit?”

take a closer look at the evidence behind it.

Layer 1: Is the project real?

Can you identify the facility where the project operates and the company responsible for running it?

Layer 2: Is the feedstock real?

Can you trace where the biomass comes from and how it is sourced?

Layer 3: Is the baseline credible?

Can you understand what would have happened to the biomass if the project had not existed?

Layer 4: Is the removal additional?

Does carbon finance play an important role in supporting the project and making the carbon removal possible?

Layer 5: Is the carbon stored for the claimed period?

Is there reliable scientific evidence to support how long the carbon is expected to remain stored?

Layer 6: Are emissions deducted?

Does the calculation include the relevant emissions produced throughout the project’s lifecycle?

Layer 7: Has the quantity been independently verified?

Can you review the verification documents to confirm that the claimed carbon removal has been checked independently?

Layer 8: Is each credit tracked separately?

Can you trace the credit from its issuance to its retirement in the relevant registry?

Layer 9: Is double counting prevented?

Can you confirm who has the right to claim the carbon removal and whether the same removal could be claimed more than once?

Layer 10: Is the climate claim appropriate?

Does the buyer’s intended climate claim accurately reflect what the credit represents and what it can actually support?

This approach gives you a much clearer picture of a biochar carbon credit’s quality than simply asking whether it is “high quality.”

Are Biochar Credits More Reliable Than Traditional Offset Credits?

This question needs a careful and balanced answer.

Biochar carbon removal has several features that can make it a good option for companies looking to buy carbon removal credits that can store carbon for a long time.

These features include:

Physical material that can be measured;
Clearly identified production facilities;
Laboratory testing to check the material’s properties;
Measurable amounts of carbon in the biochar;
Designed methods for storing carbon;
Calculations that account for emissions throughout the process;
Monitoring of individual projects to track their performance.

Biochar has also received recognition from major organizations working to improve the quality and trustworthiness of carbon markets.

In 2025, the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) approved Verra’s VM0044 version 1.2 methodology as meeting its Core Carbon Principles requirements. ICVCM’s 2025 impact report also identified approved biochar methodologies from Verra, Isometric, and Carbon Standards.

However, this does not mean that every biochar carbon credit is automatically reliable.

Even when a methodology has strong rules and requirements, each individual project still needs to be checked carefully.

Think of it this way:

Having a strong set of rules is important. But you must also check whether those rules are being followed properly in the specific project.

What Has Changed in Biochar Carbon Credits by 2026?

The market is becoming more sophisticated.

Three developments stand out.

1. More attention to additionality

Additionality is moving away from simplistic assumptions.

Verra’s VM0044 v1.2 already added investment analysis, while its proposed 2026 revision would further change how additionality is demonstrated.

2. More sophisticated durability assessment

The industry increasingly recognizes that a single chemical indicator cannot necessarily capture every aspect of carbon persistence.

Recent research has explicitly questioned the limitations of using H/C ratio alone.

3. Greater emphasis on transparency

The direction of travel is clear:

More documentation.
More measurement.
More independent verification.
More conservative accounting.
More traceability.

That is exactly what buyers should want.

Should You Buy Biochar Carbon Credits in 2026?

The useful question isn’t simply “yes” or “no.”

Instead ask:

What is the evidence behind this particular credit?

If you are considering a purchase, evaluate:

Methodology
Methodology version
Feedstock
Baseline
Additionality
Durability
Lifecycle emissions
Independent verification
Registry records
Double-counting controls
Retirement
Claiming rights

A credit that performs well across those dimensions is much easier to evaluate than one that relies primarily on marketing language.

And remember:

Carbon removal quality is not determined by the word “biochar.”

It is determined by the evidence supporting the removal claim.

The Bottom Line: Are Biochar Carbon Credits Reliable?

Biochar can be a credible and potentially durable carbon-removal pathway.

But biochar carbon credits are not automatically reliable simply because they involve biochar.

The reliability of a credit depends on the quality of the entire accounting and verification chain.

A trustworthy 2026 evaluation should be able to answer:

Where did the biomass come from?

What would have happened to it without the project?

Was the project additional?

How much carbon was actually stored?

How much of that carbon is considered durable?

What emissions occurred throughout the lifecycle?

How was permanence assessed?

Who independently verified the project?

Can the credit be traced through a public registry?

Has it already been retired or claimed?

Can the same tonne of removal be counted somewhere else?

If those answers are clear, documented and independently supported, you have the foundation for a much more credible carbon-removal purchase.

If the answers are vague, marketing-heavy or impossible to verify, the right response is not to assume the credit is bad—but to recognize that you don’t yet have enough evidence to call it reliable.

And that’s perhaps the most important lesson for the 2026 carbon market:

Don’t buy the story. Buy the evidence.

The strongest biochar carbon credits will not be the ones with the most impressive sustainability language.

They will be the ones where you can follow the carbon:

from biomass → to pyrolysis → to biochar → to durable storage → to verified tonnes → to a uniquely tracked retirement.

That is what turns a carbon-removal claim into something that can be seriously evaluated.

Sources & Further Reading

For anyone conducting professional due diligence, the underlying methodology documents are more valuable than a marketing summary.

Verra — VM0044 Biochar Utilization in Soil and Non-Soil Applications v1.2: The current active Verra biochar methodology, including additionality requirements and methodology history.

Verra — 2026 VM0044 Revision: Useful for understanding where biochar carbon accounting is heading, including proposed changes to feedstock eligibility, monitoring, additionality, transport emissions and uncertainty analysis.

Puro.earth — Biochar Methodology: Puro’s current methodology infrastructure and durability framework for engineered carbon removal.

Isometric — Biochar Production and Storage Protocol: Provides a detailed framework for net-removal calculations, lifecycle emissions, additionality, durability and ex-post credit issuance.

ICVCM — Core Carbon Principles: Useful as a broader integrity framework covering additionality, permanence, robust quantification, independent verification, transparency and double counting.

Scientific research on biochar persistence: Recent research continues to improve how durability is measured and modeled, while also highlighting the limitations of relying on any single indicator.

Research status: September 2026. Carbon-credit methodologies and project statuses can change, so buyers should check the current registry record and methodology version immediately before making a procurement or climate claim.