Developers asking "what should our credits sell for?" are really asking three questions at once: what does this project type usually trade at, how much does quality move the range, and what buyer segment are we realistically selling into?
This 2026 snapshot is designed to help with those questions. It is not a promise of spot-market execution, but it is a practical planning range for developers modelling early-stage economics and buyer conversations.
Indicative 2026 price ranges
| Project type | Typical registry | Indicative 2026 range | Why it lands there |
|---|---|---|---|
| Biochar CDR | Puro.earth | £60 to £120 / tCO₂e | Durable removal, constrained supply, strong CDR demand |
| Biochar | Verra VM0044 | £20 to £45 / tCO₂e | Removal premium, broader but less premium buyer base |
| Cookstoves | Gold Standard | £10 to £22 / tCO₂e | SDG co-benefits and stronger buyer storytelling |
| Cookstoves | Verra VCS | £6 to £14 / tCO₂e | Volume and liquidity, but lower co-benefit premium |
| Safe water | Gold Standard | £8 to £18 / tCO₂e | Health and community benefits support pricing |
| Solar / distributed renewables | Gold Standard | £8 to £18 / tCO₂e | Buyer appeal depends heavily on setting and SDGs |
| ARR / forestry | Verra | £8 to £20 / tCO₂e | Nature-based premium with project-specific dispersion |
| High-quality REDD+ | Verra + CCB | £6 to £15 / tCO₂e | Biodiversity and community labels support value |
| Legacy REDD+ | Verra | £2 to £6 / tCO₂e | Vintage discount and integrity scrutiny |
What actually moves the price
1. Removal vs avoidance
Durable removals command the largest premium because buyers with net zero commitments increasingly need carbon removal, not just emission avoidance. That is why biochar can price many multiples above a more conventional avoidance credit.
2. Registry and quality label
Gold Standard often outperforms Verra on price for the same project type because the co-benefit framing is easier for buyers to use. CCP-aligned or otherwise high-integrity labels can also move the range upward when the buyer is sophisticated enough to value them.
3. Co-benefits that are real, not decorative
Health, biodiversity, livelihoods and gender outcomes matter when they are measurable and independently evidenced. They do not help much when they read like generic brochure copy.
4. Vintage
Newer vintages usually sell better because they are easier for buyers to defend and less likely to be tied to outdated methodology assumptions. Older vintages can still clear, but often at a discount.
5. Sales channel
Direct offtake agreements, brokered transactions and transparent marketplace listings do not produce the same number. The same project may clear at very different effective prices depending on volume, timing and how much work the buyer expects the developer to do.
See the ranges in the live price guide
Use the full tool in The Carbon Workbench for saved calculations, PDF reports, and faster switching into pricing, feasibility and methodology once a benchmark becomes a real project assumption.
Use full tool in The Carbon Workbench →How developers should use price benchmarks
Do not anchor your feasibility model to the top of any range. Use a conservative case, a base case and an upside case. A project that only works at the optimistic end of the market is telling you something important about execution risk.
It also helps to separate internal planning prices from external pitch prices. Your investor deck may lead with the upside narrative, but your operating model should still survive a slower and less forgiving market.
What to do next
If you are still early, model the project under multiple price scenarios and compare standards before you finalise the registry path. The wrong registry or methodology can reduce price potential just as quickly as a weak commercial strategy.