Carbon credit ratings firm Sylvera published its Q3 2026 market data on 5 October. Carbon Market Journal issue 87 led with the same data under the headline that fewer credits are selling at higher prices as buyers pay for quality.[1][2] This note summarises the main figures and what they mean.

1. Key terms

When a company uses a carbon credit to offset its emissions, it retires the credit on a registry, meaning the tonne has been used and cannot be resold. Retirements are therefore a common measure of actual demand.

A rating is a third-party judgement of credit quality: whether the reduction happened because of the project (additionality), whether it could be reversed (permanence) and whether the accounting is conservative. Sylvera rates from AAA to D, and BBB or above is investment grade.

2. Q3 figures

  • Retirements: 30.6 million credits, down 9% from 33.7 million a year earlier. Year to date: 130.3 million, slightly above 129.1 million in the same period of 2025.[1]
  • Total value: $211.8 million, up from $190.6 million. Year to date: $798 million, up 14%.[1]
  • Average price: $6.92 per credit, compared with $5.66 a year earlier. Year to date: $6.12, compared with $5.40.[1]

Fewer credits were retired but more money was spent, so buyers paid more per credit on average.

Forest-based carbon credit projects
Forest-based carbon credit projects (AI-generated illustration)

3. Quality and price

Among rated retirements, investment-grade credits made up 18% of volume but 42% of value.[1] Price differences by project type:[1]

  • Afforestation, reforestation and revegetation (ARR): BBB+ averaged $23.47 and BB or below $12.80, about 1.83 times, a ratio near two that has held every quarter since Q1 2025.
  • Improved forest management (IFM): the gap between high and low ratings widened from $5.76 a year ago to $8.28.
  • REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation): BBB+ prices rose 58% in a year, from $4.90 to $7.75, and the gap nearly doubled.

Renewable energy credits were the largest category in Q3, at 41% of retirements. Sylvera rates all grid-connected renewable projects C or below because their additionality is generally assessed as weak. As a result, B, C and D credits made up 66.1% of Q3 retirements, about three quarters of which were renewables.[1] Sylvera also notes that renewable credit retirements have fallen each year since 2022, and their higher share this quarter mainly reflects lower volumes in other categories.[1]

Higher-rated credits command higher prices
Higher-rated credits command higher prices (AI-generated illustration)

4. Long-term offtake

Besides spot retirements, companies sign multi-year offtake agreements to secure future carbon removals. Announced offtakes in the first three quarters of 2026 totalled 32.7 million tonnes, down 53% from 70 million, mainly because Microsoft bought less. Excluding Microsoft, volumes rose from 8 million to 23 million tonnes, almost three times. Woodside ranked second at 6.6 million tonnes and Alphabet third at 3.46 million.[1]

Companies buy carbon removals through multi-year contracts
Companies buy carbon removals through multi-year contracts (AI-generated illustration)

5. Directions Taiwan can consider

  • Include ratings in procurement: prices for one tonne can differ by a factor of two across ratings. Writing rating or quality thresholds into procurement rules helps with budgeting and disclosure.
  • Note how renewable credits are viewed: international ratings are cautious about grid-connected renewable credits, so companies can give priority to other types when offsetting.
  • Consider long-term contracts: more buyers outside the tech sector are using multi-year contracts to secure removals, a reference for Taiwanese companies planning needs beyond 2030.

For Taiwan's carbon pricing, see ccs.tw's note on the carbon fee and ETS dual track. For international credit quality rules, see baselines and cookstove credits under the UN carbon market and a Taiwanese pre-purchase of Guatemalan bamboo credits.

References

  1. Sylvera, Sylvera Carbon Market Data Snapshot Q3 2026 (2026-10-05). https://www.sylvera.com/blog/q3-2026-carbon-data-snapshot
  2. CarbonCredits.com, Carbon Market Journal #87: Fewer Carbon Credits, Higher Prices: Buyers Pay for Quality (2026-10-10).
  3. Carbon Herald, Sylvera Report: Carbon Credit Retirements Fall 9% As Prices Rise In Q3 2026. https://carbonherald.com/sylvera-report-carbon-credit-retirements-fall-9-as-prices-rise-in-q3-2026/