A carbon removal credit represents a tradable certificate of verified units of carbon dioxide (or equivalent greenhouse gases) that have been actively removed from the atmosphere and securely stored through natural or technological processes. As a carbon project developer, our focus is on high-impact nature-based removal methods, such as reforestation and biochar, that deliver real, measurable, verifiable climate change mitigation, and additional co-benefits. Each credit reflects our commitment to advancing long-term climate solutions beyond emissions reductions alone.

While both terms are commonly used in sustainability communication, we believe it’s important to distinguish between them and to approach each with a critical lens.

“Climate neutral” is often used to suggest that an activity or product has no net climate impact, typically by purchasing carbon removal credits equivalent to the emissions generated. However, in reality, the atmosphere does not recognize neutrality in this way. Emissions still occur, and the effects of those emissions, especially if not paired with deep reductions, continue to accumulate. As a result, we encourage caution with climate neutral claims, which can sometimes oversimplify complex climate realities.

“Net zero“, on the other hand, represents a science-based, long-term goal that involves cutting emissions as close to zero as possible, and then using carbon removal (no avoidance credits allowed) to address only the residual emissions that remain. This pathway aligns with the global climate targets outlined by the IPCC and the Paris Agreement, and for example, is laid out in the Science Based Targets Initiative Net-Zero standard (Version 1.2 or 2.0). 

We advocate for transparent, credible climate strategies that prioritize deep reductions and high-impact removals, moving beyond claims of neutrality toward genuine climate responsibility.

We understand the concern that carbon credits might be seen as a way to “buy out” of climate responsibility. That’s why we emphasize that carbon removals should not replace the need to reduce emissions, but they should complement it to achieve overall net zero greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC 2023).

Responsible climate action means doing everything possible to cut emissions at the source. Yet, even with the most ambitious reductions, some residual emissions remain, e.g., those from agriculture or waste incineration. Carbon removal helps address this gap, and your investment accelerates the growth of much-needed carbon removal capacity.

Rather than indulgence, we view this as a contribution: supporting climate solutions that would not happen otherwise, and taking responsibility for emissions that cannot yet be eliminated.

Both approaches reflect a commitment to climate action, but they serve different purposes and communicate different intentions.

Carbon compensation typically means balancing a specific amount of emissions, often tied to a footprint or product, by purchasing an equivalent number of credits. This is best suited for a net-zero target.

Contribution claims, by contrast, focus on supporting global climate goals without making direct equivalency claims. They signal leadership and investment in long-term solutions, like carbon removal, especially when aligned with science-based targets.

We encourage companies to reflect on their broader climate strategy. For those early in their journey, contribution can be a useful step. For those advancing toward net zero, compensation claims often align more transparently with the principles of climate integrity and ambition.

Either way, your support helps the collective effort to stabilize our climate.

Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) are “locally appropriate, adaptive actions to protect, sustainably manage or restore natural or modified ecosystems to address targeted societal challenges – such as climate change mitigation -, while simultaneously enhancing human well-being and providing biodiversity benefits” (United Nations). They are effective, and scalable approaches that use the capacities of nature to deliver both environmental and social benefits.

Around the year 2000, Global Woods chose Paraguay and Argentina due to their high potential for nature-based solutions. Both countries face significant deforestation pressures. The forests in these regions are of particularly high ecological value: Paraguay hosts unique ecosystems like the Chaco and Pantanal, while Argentina spans a rare gradient from subtropical to near-polar ecosystems. This makes the protection and restoration of these landscapes all the more urgent. In these areas, reforestation would not occur without dedicated project development and funding—making our interventions clearly additional and impactful for climate mitigation while delivering ecological and socio-economic co-benefits.

Moreover, favorable climate conditions accelerate tree growth, enhancing the long-term carbon sequestration potential of reforestation and agroforestry efforts. Furthermore, the land tenure structures in both countries allow for stable, large-scale project implementation, an essential factor for ensuring long-term impact and permanence.

Today, both Argentina (with Resolution No. 385/2023 – “Carbon Market Strategy ENUMeC”) and Paraguay (with Law 7190/2023 – “Carbon Credit Law”) are aiming at establishing carbon market frameworks aligned with the Paris Agreement and the Paraguayan Ministry of the Environment (MADES) is already developing a national carbon registry to prevent double-counting and guarantee Corresponding Adjustment for authorized carbon projects under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement. This creates a supporting environment for carbon projects.

In both Paraguay and Argentina, our longstanding project histories serve as living testimonials for nature-based carbon removal. These initiatives demonstrate how forestry and agroforestry can be scaled as viable, high-quality solutions for non-avoidable and hard-to-abate emissions.