1 Comment
User's avatar
Blanca's avatar

CO2 removal feels like a marathon,important, but slow. Methane abatement is more like cutting the engine on a runaway car. It won’t solve everything, but it buys time fast.

That said, I think you’re spot on about the co-benefits problem. Nature-based credits come with built-in marketing appeal,trees, communities, biodiversity. Methane destruction doesn’t photograph well, and that seems to matter more than we want to admit when it comes to storytelling in ESG reports.

One thing I’d add is the procurement angle. Companies that already buy durable removal credits are often the ones with long planning horizons and deep internal alignment. But the price point and climate impact of super pollutant credits make them a better fit for companies just beginning to act,or those trying to balance short- and long-term impact. There’s room here to frame these credits not as a substitute, but as a bridge.

If market signals keep rewarding quality over charisma, I think this fourth pillar might end up carrying more weight than most expect.

Expand full comment