A plain-English explainer from the Repricing Carbon series. New here? Start with What Is a Carbon Credit?
If you remember one distinction from this whole market, make it this one. Carbon credits come in two basic kinds, and they are not interchangeable. Telling them apart is the difference between sounding informed and sounding lost. Here it is, as simply as I can put it.
Avoidance credits
Stop carbon from being released in the first place. Protecting a forest that was going to be cleared, or swapping a smoky cookstove for a clean one.
Removal credits
Take carbon that is already in the air and store it. Planting trees, or machines that pull carbon dioxide out and lock it underground.
A quick way to feel the difference: avoidance is not making a new mess. Removal is cleaning up a mess that already exists. Both are useful. They are not the same job.
Why the distinction got so important
For years, the market treated a ton as a ton. Avoidance and removal credits were lumped together and often priced about the same. Then buyers started asking a harder question: which of these can I actually stand behind in five years?
That question exposed a real difference in risk. Avoidance credits depend on a “what would have happened otherwise” story, and that story can be wrong or exaggerated. If the forest was never truly going to be cut, the avoidance never really happened. Removal credits are easier to point at. The carbon came out of the air and went somewhere you can describe. That does not make every removal credit good, but it does make the claim simpler to defend.
Avoidance asks you to trust a counterfactual. Removal asks you to trust a measurement. The second is usually an easier thing to prove.
The durability ladder
There is a second layer hiding inside removal, and it is worth knowing. Not all removals last the same amount of time. This is called durability or permanence, and it climbs like a ladder.
This ladder is a big part of why prices range so widely, from a dollar or two up past a thousand. You are not just paying for carbon. You are paying for how long it stays gone.
So which should a buyer choose?
This is where I want to be careful, because the easy answer is wrong. Removals are not simply “better” than avoidance. We still need to protect standing forests right now, and avoidance is how we do it. Many serious buyers build a portfolio: high-integrity avoidance to protect what exists today, plus durable removals to clean up the past and bet on the future. The mix depends on the buyer’s goals, budget, and what they need to be able to claim.
The real skill is not picking a side. It is knowing which kind of credit you are holding, what risk comes with it, and whether the price matches the durability.
Where to go next
That is the core split: avoidance prevents, removal cleans up, and durability decides how long the cleanup lasts. To understand why these different kinds carry such different price tags, read why carbon credits cost what they cost. And to judge any single credit on its merits, here are the five quality questions.
A note from the author. I am a writer who cares about sustainability, and when it comes to carbon credits I am still very much a learner. There are a lot of people who know this market far better than I do, and I have real respect for the work they have put into building it. If I got something wrong in here, I apologize, and I would genuinely like to hear about it so I can learn and correct it. I am writing this to start a conversation, not to have the last word. That is the whole point. This is a learning experience for me too, and the conversation is what moves all of us forward. If this piece helped you, share it. If you see it differently, even better. Let’s talk.