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
ScoredCAROzone Depleting Substances - Article 5 ImportsARKANSAS, USRegistry: Crediting endedGeneral Methodologyv2.1

RemTec International ODS Destruction Import Project #1

Developer: Reclamation Technologies Inc

CAR-691 ↗

#472of 1689 in United States#286of 949 in Climate Action Reserve (CAR)

Crediting ended

The crediting period has ended. Credits already issued exist; no new ones will be issued unless the crediting period is renewed.

Climate Action Reserve: “Completed”

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 5.4 / 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%.

Scored2026-09-20medium confidenceLatest verified monitoring: 2011-03-28

evidence:16/16registry documents analyzed · 4red flags

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

Analysis

RemTec's ODS destruction import project in Arkansas has VVB-confirmed additionality and inherent permanence (destroyed ODS cannot re-emit), but the extracted record is thin on baseline methodology, leakage treatment, and safeguards. The ERR figures are internally consistent (claimed equals verified at 1,272.689), and the apparent contradiction is a decimal-point extraction artifact within the same verification report. Overall a modestly verified project with several documentation gaps typical of a 2011-era CAR registration.

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)

    No CORSIA label on the registry

    Not usable for airlines' CORSIA obligations.

    Source: registry label

  • 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

    Not determined

    The registry data do not say whether these credits are removals or reductions.

  • 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
2010
1,330,1231,330,1230
2011
1,272,6891,270,5152,174
Total2,602,8122,600,6382,174

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 →