Carbon claims.
Under the lens.
Explore public registry evidence, compare project assessments and identify the questions worth asking before you commit. A clearer starting point for carbon credit research.
The scoring method
Four arcs, four fixed methodology weights — Integrity 35, Transparency 25, Claim Safety 25, Documentation 15, always 100% in total. The same method weighs every project; the reticle never shows a project's results. Select an arc or button to read what each dimension covers.
Integrity
Additionality, baselines, permanence and leakage in the public record.
WEIGHT 35% — SET IN THE PUBLIC METHODOLOGYHighest overall score in the database
The highest document-based overall score among 13,374 rankable projects across all sectors and registries in the published snapshot. A screening signal from public documents, not an investment or impact recommendation.
Coverage, with the evidence in view.
The database tracks every project record found on covered registries and marketplaces. Some carry a current v2.2 assessment, many an assessment on an earlier methodology whose score stays shown until it is re-assessed; the rest is queued, withdrawn, or not yet registered — and we say so, per project.
34,421 project records in total — the groups below add up to it
- 5,616 Assessed under v2.2
- 9,113 Earlier methodology (v2.1 or before) — score shown with its date, re-assessment pending
- 16,554 Awaiting assessment — not assessed yet; no score shown
- 33 Score withdrawn — the latest analysis was withdrawn for review
- 3,077 Not registered or inactive — outside the assessment queue
- 28 Not carbon credits (energy certificates, contributions, biodiversity credits, tokens) — not rated
Registry coverage does not imply partnership with any registry. Marketplace availability reflects the marketplaces we track — it is not the whole OTC market. Scores appear where an assessment exists: current v2.2 assessments, and assessments on an earlier methodology shown with their date until re-assessed; only scores withdrawn for review are hidden.
Start from the record, not the pitch.
One assessed project per sector — an illustrative slice of the database, not a recommendation. The full database, with every state and every filter, is one click away.
Leaderboards, one per dimension.
Programmatic rankings of document-based CarbonMeld scores. A group appears once at least five rated projects exist. These are screening signals from public documents — never an impact or investment ranking.
Sector 13 rankings
- Renewable energy 4744 rated · top 8.4/10
- Industrial 1699 rated · top 8.2/10
- Biomass 828 rated · top 8.1/10
Country 99 rankings
- China 2787 rated · top 8.6/10
- India 2758 rated · top 8.2/10
- United States 1736 rated · top 8.9/10
Standard 18 rankings
- CDM (UNFCCC) 5269 rated · top 7.2/10
- Gold Standard (GS) 2179 rated · top 8.4/10
- Verra (VCS) 1615 rated · top 8.9/10
Methodology 138 rankings
- ACM0002 3246 rated · top 8.1/10
- AMS-I.D 1919 rated · top 7.9/10
- WCC-STANDARD 884 rated · top 7.9/10
Instruments around the database.
Focused utilities built on the public data — each with its own scope and limits.
Buyers
Organisations named as retirement beneficiaries in public registry records, with their linked projects and retired volumes. A named beneficiary is not necessarily the purchaser.
CORSIA registry labels
Which projects carry a CORSIA label on their registry, by phase, next to their unretired balances (all vintages) and document ratings. A project-level label from public data — not a count of eligible units.
Check an offer
Cross-check offer text against registry and public data: registration, vintage, supply and claim labels. Included with Premium, up to 20 checks a day. It does not verify ownership or serial authenticity.
Portfolio
Follow up to 20 projects and get alerts on score, red-flag, registry-status and label changes while Premium is active.
API & MCP
REST API and MCP access included with Premium — the monthly card subscription, or one month in crypto.
More instruments: Guides Developers Compare ICVCM CCP Tracker Project Index Methodology About the System Editorial Policy Premium Request a project
One pipeline, identical for every project.
Public documents in, a versioned score out. No manual scoring, no exceptions for developers or sellers — and the criteria are published, versioned and contestable.
Public sources only
Design documents, monitoring reports and verification statements from the official registries, plus listing metadata from the tracked marketplaces. Nothing supplied privately is scored.
Four dimensions
An automated, AI-assisted pipeline reads the evidence and grades Integrity 35%, Transparency 25%, Claim Safety 25%, Documentation 15%.
Penalties & caps
Published caps apply consistently: weak integrity caps the overall at 6.0; thin documentation lowers confidence. Penalties are sector-aware and written into the public methodology.
Score + confidence
A 0–10 overall with a confidence level that says how complete the evidence was. Same number, different reliability — the confidence tells you which.
A score is a starting point for further investigation. It is not verified impact, purchase advice, certification or compliance approval. Missing evidence is not proof of failure. Full rules: methodology ↗
Independent by design. Hard limits, stated.
How independence is protected
The automated analysis applies the same published criteria to every project, whether or not its owner pays for Premium. Scores are never sold, and corrections are reviewed against public registry evidence.
Anybody can contest a score from the project page, pointing at a public registry source. Every dispute gets a reference number and an answer within 30 days.
What this tool does not do
- No field visits, no satellite verification, no human analyst sign-off — the evidence is the public document base.
- Not a registry, not a certification body, not an investment adviser.
- Documents can be incomplete; confidence tells you when to discount a number.
- Not a substitute for legal, contractual or regulatory due diligence.
Use it to decide what deserves a deeper look — then do the deeper look with the registry documents we link to.
The market around the evidence.
Analysis and commentary drafted by the automated editorial system from cited public sources.
- 5 Nov 2026 ICVCM Puts Buffer Pools on Trial: Stress Tests, Insurance and a Permanence Trust The ICVCM is weighing stress tests for buffer pools, insurance and a permanence trust to strengthen carbon credit durability. What it means for buyers.
- 4 Nov 2026 Three Tracks, One 200-Year Bar: Gold Standard's First Biochar Methodology Gold Standard's PARC methodology opens biochar removal credits to all scales: three tracks, 200-year durability accounting and a five-to-one net storage test.
- 4 Nov 2026 Out of the ETS Draft: Irish Presidency Scraps Carbon Farming References The Irish EU presidency cut all carbon farming and nature-based removal references from its first ETS compromise text ahead of a December Council target.
Free headline. €9 a month when you need the depth.
The headline screen is free for every assessed project. Premium opens the full breakdown: €9 + VAT a month by card, renewed automatically until you cancel (any time), or one month at a time in crypto.
Free access
€0
- Overall score for every assessed project
- Assessment summary and red-flag count
- Side-by-side comparison of up to 10 projects (public data)
- Registry links and project metadata
- Blog articles
Premium
€9 + VAT / month · cancel any time
- Dimension breakdowns and full red-flag text
- Registry documents and PDF reports
- Portfolio of up to 20 projects, with alerts on score, red-flag, registry-status and label changes while Premium is active
- Check an offer: up to 20 offer checks a day
- REST API and MCP access included
- Compare: per-dimension scores and red-flag details in comparisons
- Fair use: 30 distinct project views a day