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
ScoredHCSRemovalPennsylvania, USAVintage 2023, 2024General Methodologyv2.1

Cedar Meadow Farm

Developer: Hemp Carbon Standard, Inc

TC-1937 ↗

Worked comparison example (English)

#690of 703 in Biomass#1528of 1702 in United States#23of 41 in Hemp Carbon Standard (HCS)

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 2.1 / 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%.

Scored2026-09-02medium confidence

evidence:10/10registry documents analyzed · 4red flags

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

Analysis

Cedar Meadow Farm presents a biomass removal credit under the Hemp Carbon Standard with critical gaps across every quality dimension. The most alarming issue is a ten-fold discrepancy between the claimed issuance of 549 tCO₂e and the ex-ante lifetime estimate of 55 tCO₂e, compounded by the absence of any additionality test, baseline methodology, buffer pool, or leakage treatment. The verification report itself flags atypical net ecosystem exchange patterns in three polygons and a methodology version mismatch (v1.1 verified vs. v2.0 in current use), further undermining confidence in the underlying science.

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 10 registry documents (10 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)

    Not published

    This registry does not publish CORSIA eligibility per project.

  • Integrity label (ICVCM CCP)

    Mentioned in the project documents

    The documents mention CCP eligibility; no registry label confirms it.

    Source: project documents (not confirmed by the registry)

  • 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: project credit type

  • Paris Agreement (Article 6)

    Not published

    This registry does not publish Article 6 authorizations.

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.

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2023
4181417
2024
5490549
Total9671966

Where to buy

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

Marketplaces

ClimateTrade

~24.0/tCO2

Vintage 2023, 2024

965 available

↗
+ 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 →