“At the moment, in the Singapore carbon tax regime, there’s no reward for a company to buy a US$25 nature-based carbon removal rather than a US$5 nature-based avoidance credit,” said Lukas May, chief commercial officer of Isometric. “That’s something that maybe the Singapore government will want to tighten up.”
The city-state’s carbon tax, which currently stands at S$25 (US$19) per tonne, will be raised to S$45 (US$35) in 2026, with aims to reach up to S$80 (US$62) by 2030.
Carbon removals have seen a notable surge in interest after much of the rainforest offsets offered by the world’s largest carbon credits certifier Verra were found to have exaggerated their climate benefits. Driven by engineered removal credits, like biochar and mineralisation, this emerging credit type – which are generally considered a more high-quality, durable way of taking greenhouse gas emissions out of the atmosphere compared to avoided deforestation projects – has seen a 102 per cent surge in transactions in 2025 compared to the year before.
However, the greater verification demands and upfront costs required in developing removal projects have also been reflected in their prices, which are typically four to five times that of avoidance credits. As such, technology giants like Microsoft, Meta and Meta – which are part of Frontier, a buyer coalition that has committed US$1 billion to back early stage removal projects by 2030 – remain the largest offtakers of removal credits.
But for demand for high-quality removal credits to scale, governments will have to take over, said May.
For instance, the United Kingdom (UK) has plans to allow for carbon removal credits to substitute emissions allowances on a one-for-one basis in its emissions trading scheme (ETS) from 2029 onwards. The European Union (EU) is also expected to make a decision on the inclusion of carbon removals in its ETS next year. Meanwhile, Japan’s inaugural ETS, which will become a mandatory, compliance-based system from 2026, will be accepting carbon removal credits from the get go.
In recent years, newer registries, like Puro.earth and Isometric, have entered the market to fill the gap in verifying engineered carbon removals, as Verra’s stronghold in the voluntary carbon market (VCM) weakens.
Founded in 2022, Isometric is looking to restore trust into the scandal-ridden VCM by revamping the industry’s prevailing payment model, introducing scientifically-driven standards and most importantly, using technology to speed up the issuance frequency of credits from once a year under traditional offset registries, to once a month, said May.
While the registry has verified and issued just under 16,000 tonnes of removal credits to date – a fraction of the verified volumes at rival registries like Puro.earth – it has been among the handful that have received stamps of approval from the three most prominent verification bodies in the space: Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM), the United Nations-backed CORSIA scheme and International Emissions Trading Association (IETA)-led International Carbon Reduction and Offset Alliance (ICROA).
Earlier this year, it also achieved the feat of issuing the world’s first-ever removal credits from enhanced rock weathering – a novel process of accelerating the natural breakdown of certain rocks that can react with carbon dioxide, which gets flushed into the ocean to be stored for long periods of time. The registry expects to issue its second batch of enhanced rock weathering removal credits in December, said May.
Eco-Business sat down with Isometric’s May for an interview when he was in Singapore earlier this month, to speak about how the city-state can play a bigger role in growing the emerging carbon removals market and how increased rigour in verification does not have to come at the expense of the speed in issuing credits.
What brings you to Singapore and who are you trying to sell your verification services to here?
We’re interested in this region because there are both buyers and project developers here. We’re also interested in the policy work that Singapore is doing and helping to shape that. We’re talking to regulators about what’s happening in Europe and other places where we see carbon markets starting to be regulated for the first time.
In the long run, we think regulators should definitely step in and that’s one of the things we’re doing in Singapore, telling the government that it should regulate us.
We founded Isometric with the aim of setting a really high bar for rigour and minimising conflict of interest, so that when regulation finally comes in, we’ll already be meeting or exceeding it.
Relatedly, could you expand on how Isometric’s payment model is different from the other registries? How does the flat fee charged to buyers change the incentives to ensure the integrity of credits being sold and purchased through its registry?
We founded the company as we saw three gaps that had probably contributed to the trust problem in the carbon markets.
The first gap was the lack of scientific rigour. Registries generally didn’t have any scientists on staff. They’re often non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that have policy-type people – well-meaning, good people – but they don’t have the scientific expertise to hold the projects to account and to identify problems with them before they get worse. So we raised US$25 million in seed funding and hired some of the best scientists in the world. For each of the 11 carbon removal pathways that we cover, we have two or three scientists. We now have a team of over 20 scientists who write these really rigorous protocols for projects to qualify for credits. Our protocols are the most rigorous in the market. So that’s one area we try to do differently.
The second gap is in technology. A lot of these registries are quite old fashioned. They are NGOs, who aren’t known for their tech savvyness. Because of that, carbon markets have also been slow in functioning as transaction markets. The typical registries will issue credits once a year – we managed to speed that up to once a month through basic things like digitising everything that we do, having an application programming interface (API) where we can receive the data from project sites in real time, and building machine learning algorithms to identify and address problems based on the data.
Finally, the payment model. That’s the third area that we wanted to do differently. It seemed obvious to us that there was a conflict of interest, as a registry, to be checking the homework for project developers – assessing if they were doing the right thing or not and how many credits they should get – and then being paid by them for every credit that we issue. It just seems really hard to imagine that you don’t round up rather than round down in that situation when your paycheck depends on it.
So we made sure we never get paid by project developers and only get paid by buyers. We’re the only registry that is doing it that way. Obviously, change is always difficult. When we first started doing this, buyers were confused. They normally just deal with a project developer and the project developer pays a registry. But they understood the rationale behind it. Ultimately, it’s just another contract to sign. So it’s not the end of the world. We’ve been able to bring on board the biggest buyers of carbon removal in the world, like Microsoft, Stripe, JP Morgan and Shopify – companies with big legal teams and good procurement teams. We’re hoping that it sets a new norm for the industry, and that other registries realise that it’s a better model and switch to it.
Is all the monitoring, reporting and verification all done in house at Isometric?
Like other registries, we work with validation and verification bodies (VVBs). Other registries allow the project developer to choose their favourite VVB and the project developer pays them – which is again, a conflict of interest. We select the VVB for the project based on who has the right expertise – essentially who can do the job well. We pay them and instruct them to do things like site visits.
There is a lot that we do ourselves in house. We built the technology platform to monitor the data that we receive from projects and our scientists review the data to make sure that they are complying with the protocols. But the VVBs do play an important role in providing an independent audit. They are the first line of defense to check if the project is complying with the Isometric protocol. They then write a report for us and we check the report.
How does Isometric assess projects differently from other registries? For instance, other registries, such as Puro.earth, have issued their own methodologies for verifying technical removals, like enhanced rock weathering.
The differences start at the methodology or protocol level. Our view is that our protocol on enhanced rock weathering is more rigorous than theirs. But that’s not necessarily a good thing. Our protocols are open source, so over time, the gaps between the Puro.earth protocol and ours have shrunk. They have released an update which brings it a lot closer to what ours is today.
The biggest change that they’ve made is to move away from giving a lot of flexibility to project developers to rely on modelling results, towards requiring measurements and sampling. We’ve always had that in our protocol from the beginning because it’s too early to allow modelling results to be the dominant way in which you issue credits. We need to run statistical analysis on real soil data and water data to check how much carbon has actually been removed from the atmosphere, rather than saying we dumped this much rock on this kind of field and our models tell us that this much carbon has been removed.
We’ll get there eventually – it’s just that we need to start using big data and building that evidence base before we can start to have really trustworthy models.
In the actual verification process, the big difference – even more so than we expected – is that we take a very hands-on approach that draws on the expertise of our science team. We are doing a lot of these projects for the first time. Enhanced rock weathering, for example, is a new pathway that is going from the lab into the field. But the conditions in the field are different from the lab. For instance, it rains a lot more than expected, or the sugarcane that you need to walk through to get your samples is actually six feet high and has snakes in the grass, so it’s practically quite difficult to go out there.
The most important thing is that we have three of the world’s experts in enhanced rock weathering – PhD scientists – in our team. So when novel issues emerge and judgment calls need to be made, we’re able to advise and work with the scientists in the project developers’ team. Whereas, if you don’t have that expertise, and other registries generally don’t, they haven’t been able to make those investments. They will have to take the project developers’ word for it or rely on the VVBs, which don’t have that expertise either, because enhanced rock weathering is such a specialised field.
It’s therefore surprising that though you’re saying Isometric’s protocol on enhanced rock weathering is a lot more rigorous than Puro.earth’s, it will be issuing the world’s first two batches of credits. Shouldn’t it be harder to have projects that meet its criteria?
You’re totally right. My job as COO is definitely made harder by what our science team does. Because if you’re a project developer, it doesn’t always sound like good news that you’ve got to do more work or take more samples. This is because you might bear some additional short-term costs and your projections of how many credits you were going to get might be a bit too optimistic.
But what is key to this industry is trust. If you cut corners and do things that are hard to defend in public later because you don’t have the evidence behind it, the whole thing is going to unravel. That is why project developers have gone with us for those first few issuances. Because in the end, they’re trading a product that can’t be seen and is all about trust. The buyers – in particular, sophisticated buyers like Microsoft – also need convincing before they sign on the line. They want to see that level of rigour.
The other reason is that real support for project developers, in many ways, far outweighs whatever extra complications there are in terms of sampling. We often hear from project developers who switch to us that one of the big differences between us and Verra is that we answer their emails. It makes me a bit sad saying that, because we have invested so much time and money in a world class science and tech team, but at the end of the day, our responsiveness is the thing that stays with them.
It seems silly, but when you really think about it, for these project developers it does matter. Getting your credits to market after six months, rather than after 16 months, could be life or death because you’re trying to raise money. These are expensive things to build. You need proof that your thing works to raise the money. So if it takes you 16 months to get the proof point, you might just run out of money.
Let’s take the example of direct air capture. If you have captured the carbon dioxide and injected it underground, but only get a credit a year later, all the costs for that whole year needs to be financed. You’re basically paying a massive amount in debt and interest. Whereas, if you can get credits every month, then your cash flow needs are much easier to manage.
“
We often hear from project developers who switch to us that one of the big differences between us and Verra is that we answer their emails. It makes me a bit sad saying that, because we have invested so much time and money in a world class science and tech team, but at the end of the day, our responsiveness is the thing that stays with them.
So far, it seems like the Big Tech companies are the only ones that see value in paying for these verification services. Do you think the market will go beyond these premium buyers?
It’s been really interesting talking to potential buyers here. The kind of conversations you have here are different. People are very – I don’t want to say kiasu – but price sensitive, let’s put it that way. People are honest about the fact that if they are choosing between a US$5 and US$10 credit, they are going to buy the US$5 credit, because no one’s making them [buy higher quality credits] anyway. In fact, maybe they won’t even buy the US$5 credit and just save the money. It’s good to have that honest conversation, because I think that is more representative of the world economy at large.
It’s a luxury good at the moment that we’re very grateful that folks like Microsoft are spending this money to catalyse and create an industry. We need it to exist to draw down billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide a year through removals, not hundreds of thousands of tonnes a year. Microsoft is really helping it climb up those first few steps, but they can’t take it all the way. We can’t rely on the goodwill of deep-pocketed tech companies to scale this market. So what’s the answer? I think it goes back to governments. This is going to be something that governments either have to buy themselves to meet their own climate goals or make the polluting companies in their territory buy to offset the damage they’re doing when they release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Luckily, this isn’t some hypothetical fairytale. This is happening.
The UK and the EU are putting rules around what should be defined as a carbon removal. For example, they are making the distinction clear that highly durable carbon removal that can be safely stored for 200 years or more, not avoidance, is what counts. These rules fall under the Carbon Certification Removal Framework (CRCF), which can then be plugged into the EU ETS, where Microsoft, Google, Meta, and hopefully Amazon, will help this industry grow over the next few years. But from 2030 onwards, governments have to take over.
“
We can’t rely on the goodwill of deep-pocketed tech companies to scale this market. So what’s the answer? I think it goes back to governments… From 2030 onwards, governments have to take over.
In Singapore, were there any conversations around that?
Singapore has done some things really well. It has a carbon price, which is a great start. It’s a low price at the moment, but it will be going up. It has also created a provision that up to 5 per cent of carbon tax liability can be offset by carbon credits. Where there is still a little further to go, drawing from examples of the UK and the EU, is to get really clear about what’s an acceptable level of quality for these credits.
It’s challenging because within the carbon price range of S$25 (US$19) to S$45 (US$35), there are not many carbon removal credits today that get close to being cheap enough. The cheapest among what people consider as tech carbon removals is biochar, which is about US$150 per tonne. The most expensive is direct air capture, which goes up to US$900 per tonne, which doesn’t work in the EU ETS either way. The idea is that the cost will come down, but they’re not going to come down to S$25 (US$19). Will they come down to S$80 (US$62), which is where Singapore’s carbon tax plans to end up? Maybe.
We do cover nature-based removals, so reforestation, mangroves, peatlands, as well. Those can be more cheaply priced, but they still look expensive compared to cheap avoidance offsets.
On that note, IETA and UNEP recently raised concerns about the impact of the Article 6.4 draft on project viability of nature-based removal credits. Do you guys share those views?
I’m glad that the starting position of the folks at the UN is: let’s make this rigorous, let’s avoid the mistakes of the Clean Development Mechanism and issuing credits that should have never been issued as they didn’t represent the climate impact they promised.
I am sympathetic with some of the concerns that have been levied at the proposal. It’s not really clear whether it’s saying, should we exclude nature-based removals or not. If they want to say that, they should just say that. If they don’t want to say that, then as drafted, it will seem pretty tricky. But the Methodological Expert Panel, which writes these drafts, aren’t the decision makers. It goes to a supervisory body, which might say, give us something else to look at and we’ll take that to COP. That’s probably what’s going to happen here, there will be some reworking of that proposal.
My understanding from speaking to those involved is that the intention was not to exclude nature-based removals. So somehow there’s been a bit of botched communication, which happens. But it’s a draft. Someone gives you comments on your draft and you try again – that’s normal.
Our bigger meta concern about Article 6.4 is how they’re really going to operationalise it. Everyone’s very pleased after the last COP that the rules are in place. But it doesn’t end there. You need someone to oversee the VVBs. At the moment, the way they designed it, there’s no role for someone like us or Verra. It’s just the UN Supervisory Body doing it. But the body is just a dozen civil servants all seconded from their member states. We have 70 full time staff. We have 20 scientists, 20 software engineers. Are they planning to build the architecture themselves? If not, how are they going to do it to the same level of rigour, speed and responsiveness that we try and bring to the VCM? You don’t want an outcome in Article 6.4, where you have the same problem with Verra, where the credits take two years to come to market. Or even worse, they just go completely hands off and just say the only way to deal with this massive backlog is to not really look at anything and rubber stamp it all. Neither of those seem like good outcomes.
It’s as if you’re a central bank and you were going to offer bank accounts to everyone in the country. That’s crazy. No central bank has ever done that. You regulate the banks and let the banks build the tech, operate the applications, offer the customer service and release new products, because private sector entities are able to do that effectively. We hope that they’ll look at the EU’s model, where they’ve set high level principles enshrined into law to regulate us, while leaving the detailed operationalising to registries like us. So there’s that missing middle at the moment in Article 6.4 that is probably the bigger challenge.
With carbon dioxide removals set to be included in the EU ETS and the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), what do you think the implication is for the market?
I think the EU ETS has far reaching implications. But the EU doesn’t do anything very quickly so they all say something like, we’re going to start small and build this up from 2030. But even that direction of travel will start to affect project developers and offtakers today. We already see project developers making sure that what they’re doing is aligned with CRCF, because the expectation is that it would be the rules governing the EU ETS.
So once all that stuff is finalised, as it is in the UK, we’ll start to see that impact on investment decisions. On the SBTi, if they can move quickly enough, there is an opportunity for this to matter and have an impact.
How quickly is quick enough?
They really need to have made a decision and communicated it to their members within the next nine months. Because the closer it gets to the EU ETS review, the more everyone will see it as the market to drive demand. But there is value in SBTi in the short and medium term, because until that real ETS demand kicks in, you are relying on those tech companies and voluntary buyers.
SBTi is a big pool of potential voluntary buyers who today aren’t buying carbon removals. But if the SBTi sticks with the first of the three options in its draft guidance – which says it will be mandatory for firms to to have made their first purchases of carbon removals by 2030 to demonstrate they are on a path towards net zero – then there will be hundreds, if not thousands, of companies who will start looking to buy carbon removal credits for the first time in say, 2027 or 2028.
In terms of the exact scale of that, my personal estimate is something like another one or two Frontiers entering the market.
I do know for the EU’s CRCF though, there has been some criticism that biomass is wrongly deemed “carbon-neutral” as well. What’s your take on that?
I think the EU is absolutely aligned philosophically with not having people cut down trees to turn it into carbon dioxide removals. There have been scandals with biofuels that have really highlighted the problems of the market leakage effects, where farmers convert land into crops that are grown just to be turned into biofuels, so the carbon benefit of a biofuel therefore does not exist.
In our protocols, we have accounted for this very carefully. We set our rules to make sure that developers aren’t having that kind of knock on effect when sourcing biomass. It has to be a waste product and incentives are not being created through payments to farmers to convert their fields from one type of crop to another type of crop. We have these protections built into all of our biomass-based protocols, whether that’s bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) or biochar.
Again, I’ll say it: they are the most stringent in the market. Other registries don’t have these protections, but these are no less than what the buyers expect. Microsoft and Frontier are all very aware of these challenges and the reputational risks that would arise, so they have their own guidances in this area.
The EU, because of the Renewable Energy Directive, has a set of rules around biomass sourcing. And for policymakers, if there’s an existing policy they can copy and paste, they will do it, otherwise it creates all sorts of problems if you have one policy here saying one thing, and another policy there saying another thing. So they have lifted and shifted the biomass sourcing rules from the directive. We think, and I know that a lot of NGOs in Europe think that those rules aren’t quite good enough.
I think the intent is right and that for many of the first projects that will be credited, the EU rules will actually do the job. The issue is where you have edge cases, where specifically following the rules isn’t enough to stop the farmer from changing the way land is used. What you want to do is have the rules future-proofed to cover other scenarios that could emerge. So in the EU’s latest policy documents, they do have a provision now to assess what’s actually going on every year and to adapt the rules so at least the problems can’t build up.
The interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.
