Carbon removal vs avoidance describes two different things a carbon credit can stand for: emissions that were kept out of the atmosphere, or carbon that was actively taken out of it and stored.
This page is part of a series built around the question what is carbon offsetting, and it looks only at how the two credit types differ and why the label matters when credits are compared.
Two kinds of climate benefit behind a credit
The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) explains that carbon markets let governments, companies and other entities trade emissions reductions or removals through carbon credits, with each credit representing 1 tonne of CO2e. The unit is the same, but the activity behind it is not.
The same guide describes projects that range from capturing methane from landfills and implementing sustainable agriculture practices to planting and managing forests or mangroves and developing carbon removal technologies such as direct air capture. In the plain-language sense used by most buyers, a reduction or avoidance credit rests on emissions that did not happen, while a removal credit rests on carbon that was captured and stored.
In both cases the ICVCM describes the same safeguard: third-party auditors verify that the reductions or removals were achieved before credits are issued, according to the ICVCM guide to the Core Carbon Principles.
How EU law separates permanent and temporary removals
The clearest legal wording comes from the EU regulation that sets up a voluntary certification framework for permanent carbon removals, carbon farming and carbon storage in products. It treats these as separate categories with separate storage expectations, and it keeps soil emission reductions apart from removals.
| Category | What the regulation says |
|---|---|
| Permanent carbon removal | Captures and stores carbon for several centuries |
| Carbon farming | An activity period of at least five years, with temporary storage in biogenic carbon pools or reduced soil emissions |
| Carbon storage in products | Carbon stored for at least 35 years in long-lasting products |
The definitions in the table come from the EU carbon removals certification regulation as published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
The regulation also defines a soil emission reduction unit separately from a carbon farming sequestration unit, so a reduction of emissions from soil and a temporary removal are not counted as the same thing under the EU framework. Whatever a project is called in marketing, the legal categories turn on what happens to the carbon and for how long.
Reversal risk and why storage time matters
A removal only helps the climate for as long as the carbon stays out of the air. The ICVCM guide notes that for project types where there is material risk, there is a 40-year minimum commitment to monitor, report and compensate for avoidable reversals, counted from the start date of the mitigation activity.
The same document says that conservation and avoided conversion, soil carbon sequestration, forestry sequestration and wetland and marine ecosystem restoration projects are required to monitor and compensate for reversals, including through pooled buffer reserves, while other types such as biochar and carbon capture and storage with geological storage or mineralisation are required to assess reversal risk and manage it. Reversal risk is therefore a concern for removals and for some avoidance-type activities alike, as the permanence section of the guide sets out.
Under the EU rules, the difference shows up in the definitions themselves: a permanent carbon removal is meant to store carbon for several centuries, while carbon farming involves only temporary storage, as laid out in the regulation’s definitions.
Baselines and additionality for avoidance credits
Avoidance credits are measured against a counterfactual: what would have happened without the project. The ICVCM states that additionality ensures credits represent emissions reductions or removals that would not have happened without the incentive of a carbon credit. For an avoidance project, that is the central question, because the claimed benefit is a gap between a real outcome and an estimated one.
The guide lists tests that programmes apply to demonstrate this, including investment analysis, barrier analysis and market penetration or common practice, along with evidence that carbon credits were considered before the mitigation activity started, as the additionality criteria show. Removals face the same additionality question, but the carbon stored can in principle be measured directly rather than inferred from a baseline.
Double counting is a further risk on both sides. The ICVCM guide says that when the same reduction or removal is counted more than once, it creates a misleading representation of the scale of climate mitigation achieved.
How to read a project description
Project documents rarely use the words removal or avoidance in a consistent way, so the practical test is to ask what the credit measures. A credit tied to a reduction asks whether emissions fell compared with a plausible baseline. A credit tied to a removal asks how much carbon was captured, where it is stored and what could release it again.
The ICVCM adds that tracking is accomplished through registries, and that transparency enables external scrutiny and builds market confidence. A project that publishes its baseline, monitoring approach and storage arrangements lets an outside reader judge whether the benefit is real, whichever side of the line it falls on.
The EU framework applies the same logic to certified units, saying that a certified unit shall not be issued more than once and shall not be used by more than one natural or legal person at any point in time. Counting rules of this kind apply to both removals and reductions, so they are a better guide to quality than the label alone.
Forests and land projects sit on both sides of the line
Land-based projects show why a simple removal or avoidance label can hide detail. Protecting an existing forest from clearing and planting a new one are different activities, and the ICVCM guide lists conservation and avoided conversion separately from forestry sequestration in its permanence requirements. The first is an avoidance-type activity and the second a removal-type one.
The page on forest carbon offsets covers those project types and their risks in more depth.
What the distinction means for buyers and for claims
Neither type is simply better. The ICVCM states that permanence is best addressed through robust, system-level safeguards, rather than by excluding categories of mitigation activity. In practice, the quality questions are the same for both: how the benefit was measured, how long it lasts and whether it can be traced in a registry. A separate guide, how to choose carbon offsets, turns those questions into a checklist.
The distinction also matters for wording. The EU directive on empowering consumers for the green transition says it is particularly important to prohibit claims, based on the offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions, that a product has a neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. A business that makes public climate claims should check the advertising and consumer rules where it operates, whichever credit type it uses.
Frequently asked questions
Is a removal credit always better than an avoidance credit?
Not by type alone. The ICVCM says permanence is best handled through system-level safeguards rather than by excluding categories of mitigation activity, according to its Core Carbon Principles guide.
Do tree-planting credits count as removals?
Forestry sequestration is listed as its own project category in the ICVCM permanence requirements, separate from conservation and avoided conversion.
How long does a permanent removal have to store carbon?
Under the EU certification regulation, a permanent carbon removal captures and stores carbon for several centuries, while carbon farming involves temporary storage.
What does one credit represent?
The ICVCM guide says each credit represents 1 tonne of CO2e, whether the credit comes from a reduction or a removal.
