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
ScoredHCSRemovalCalifornia, USAVintage 2023, 2024General Methodologyv2.1

Terpene Belt Farms

Developer: Hemp Carbon Standard, Inc

TC-1941 ↗

Worked comparison example (English)

#688of 704 in Biomass#1512of 1702 in United States#19of 41 in Hemp Carbon Standard (HCS)

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 2.3 / 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:11/11registry documents analyzed · 4red flags

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

Analysis

Terpene Belt Farms (Hemp Carbon Standard) presents a severely under-documented removal credit with no additionality assessment, no stated baseline method, no buffer pool, and no leakage treatment. The verification report flags atypical NEE patterns in three polygons and a methodology version mismatch (v1.1 verified vs. v2.0 in use), yet no corrective actions were required. A contradiction in claimed ERR figures (400 vs. 37 tCO₂e across two issuance records) and the absence of any verified ERR figure make it impossible to confirm the project's actual carbon performance.

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 11 registry documents (11 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 stated as eligible

    The project documents do not claim CORSIA eligibility.

    Source: project documents (not confirmed by the registry)

  • 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
92288636
2024
37037
Total95988673

Where to buy

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

Marketplaces

ClimateTrade

~24.0/tCO2

Vintage 2023, 2024

923 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 →