CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Tools
ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index BuyersCORSIA supplyCheck an offerAPI & MCP Method About the System Editorial Policy Score Your Project
EN
Workbench ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index
← All projects
ScoredCARLandfill Gas Capture/CombustionGEORGIA, USRegistry: RegisteredGeneral Methodologyv2.1

Dalton-Whitfield Landfill Project

Developer: Dalton-Whitfield Regional Solid Waste Management Authority

CAR-466 ↗

#201of 552 in Methane#655of 1689 in United States#427of 948 in Climate Action Reserve (CAR)

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 5.1 / 10
Integrity 🔒 Transparency 🔒 Claim Safety 🔒 Documentation 🔒
Dimension scores are locked — the faint arcs are empty tracks, not zero scores.

Scale 0–10 · method weights: integrity 35% · transparency 25% · claim safety 25% · documentation 15%.

Scored2026-09-18high confidence

evidence:67/67registry documents analyzed · 4red flags

Generated by CarbonMeld Analysis Pipeline · Methodology · Editorial Policy · About the System
Download Report (PDF)

Analysis

The Dalton-Whitfield Landfill Project is a CAR-registered methane capture project with VVB-confirmed additionality and a measured project-specific baseline, but it carries notable gaps in leakage quantification, operational compliance (CWA non-compliance flag, recording outages), and dual-channel exposure through CORSIA eligibility. Multiple contradictions across documents—particularly on safeguards, grievance mechanisms, and the crediting period start date—reduce confidence in the consistency of the project record.

Red Flags

4 red flags detected — Unlock with Premium

Findings

Risk Indicators

Additionality

🔒

Permanence

🔒

Leakage

🔒

Baseline

🔒

Safeguards

🔒

Double-claim

🔒

Risk indicator details are a Premium feature

Score Breakdown

Score factors per dimension are a Premium feature — Unlock with Premium

Detailed Analysis

The detailed per-dimension analysis is a Premium feature — Unlock with Premium

Evidence

Eligibility & market

What can you claim with this credit?

Four checks buyers ask about, from the registry and the Integrity Council (ICVCM).

  • Airlines (CORSIA)

    Stated in the project documents

    The documents claim CORSIA eligibility, but no registry label confirms it: check vintage and authorization.

    Source: project documents (not confirmed by the registry)

  • Integrity label (ICVCM CCP)

    CCP-labelled credits

    The registry marks these credits with the Core Carbon Principles label of the Integrity Council.

    Source: registry label

  • Removal or reduction

    Emission reduction or avoidance

    Prevents or reduces emissions — fits contribution claims, not SBTi neutralisation.

    Source: registry label

  • Paris Agreement (Article 6)

    No Article 6 authorization

    No corresponding adjustment: the host country can also count this reduction towards its own target.

    Source: registry label

Information only, from public sources. Claim rules (CORSIA, SBTi, EU rules on green claims) change: check them before making a public claim. Since 27 September 2026, EU consumer rules do not allow “climate neutral” product claims based on offsets.

Registry labels last checked:2026-09-27

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2008
23,48323,4830
2009
45,91645,9160
2010
43,87821,72222,156
2011
41,63840,2951,343
2012
41,33325,66715,666
2013
44,16944,1690
2014
42,05823,04219,016
2015
41,89331,33610,557
2016
18,88318,143740
2022
47,55847,5580
2023
39,39312,57226,821
2024
18,324018,324
Total448,526333,903114,623

Retired by

Organisations named as beneficiaries in the registry's public retirement records.

Where to buy

Got an offer for these credits? Check it against the registry →

+ Know where to buy this?

Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].

⚑ Dispute this rating

Profile & governance

Analysis ProvenanceGeneral Methodologyv2.1
Methodology·Editorial Policy·About the System

Are you the project owner?

Metadata correction (free)

Name, country, marketplace or links incorrect? Let us know.

Does not modify the score.

[email protected] →

Contest this rating

Something wrong in the analysis, or a registry document we have not used? Send us the link to the public source: you get a reference and an answer within 30 days.

Contest this rating →