Skip to main content
CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Tools
EN
Re-assessment pendingCARImproved Forest ManagementUSRegistry: RegisteredCAR-US-FOREST

Rips Redwoods

Developer: Rips Redwoods, LLC

CAR-1015 ↗

#130of 534 in REDD+#299of 1794 in United States#136of 1012 in Climate Action Reserve (CAR)#17of 39 in CAR-US-FOREST

Score from methodology v2.1 (analysis of 20 Sep 2026). Re-assessment under v2.2 pending.

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 5.9 / 10 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%.

Re-assessment pending · v2.1

Analysis

Rips Redwoods is a long-tenure (100-year) improved forest management project in California with a verified combined additionality test, a 16.71% buffer pool, and no reported reversals. However, a material error in the original baseline carbon-stock modeling required amendment, an internal contradiction exists in the verified ERR figures within the same verification report, and FPIC was not conducted. These issues temper an otherwise reasonably structured CAR project.

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

Unlock the full analysis

Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 4 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 62 registry documents (62 analyzed).

€9+ VAT · 30-day pass · one-time, no auto-renewal

Every rated project, PDF reports, API access, portfolio alerts and per-dimension scores with red-flag details in side-by-side comparisons for 30 days (public-data comparison is free; fair use: 30 projects per day).

Price + VAT · By paying you accept the Terms of Use — digital content, no refunds. How Premium works

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)

    Methodology under ICVCM assessmentCAR U.S. Forest Protocol

    The Integrity Council has not decided on this methodology yet.

    Source: ICVCM assessment

  • Removal or reduction

    Carbon removal

    Takes CO₂ out of the atmosphere — the only type that can neutralise residual emissions in an SBTi net-zero claim.

    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:2026-10-04

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2013
117,44100
2014
6,30500
2015
8,7497,2871,462
2016
8,7497,2871,462
2017
8,7497,2871,462
2018
8,1137,287826
2019
15,29515,2950
2020
5,26605,266
2021
5,26605,266
2022
5,26605,266
2023
5,26605,266
2024
5,38405,384
2025
12,398012,398
Total212,24744,44344,058

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].

Profile & governance

Analysis ProvenanceImproved Forest Management Protocol

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 →