Carbon Removal vs. Carbon Avoidance: What’s the Difference and Why It Matters for Strategy

As companies face growing regulatory and stakeholder pressure to meet net-zero targets, clear decisions around carbon offsets are critical. Yet many still ask:

• What’s the difference between carbon removal and carbon avoidance?
• Which solutions are scientifically credible and aligned with long-term climate goals?
• How can we use carbon credits effectively while avoiding greenwashing?

This guide outlines:

• The scientific distinction between removal and avoidance
• The role of nature-based solutions (NbS) in both categories
• How to evaluate impact, permanence, and cost
• A strategic framework for combining approaches in carbon offset portfolios

What Is the Difference Between Carbon Avoidance and Carbon Removal?

When it comes to carbon offsets in the voluntary carbon market (VCM), most projects fall into two categories:

1. Carbon Avoidance
Avoidance projects work by preventing greenhouse gas emissions that would otherwise occur. This includes activities like protecting forests from deforestation, reduce methane emissions from landfills, or shifting to renewable energy sources. While these projects don't remove existing carbon from the atmosphere, they play a crucial role in slowing the pace of climate change and safeguarding existing carbon sinks.

Benefits and impacts of avoidance:
•    Cost-effective, especially in the Global South
•    Immediate impact on emissions trajectory
•    Supports biodiversity and ecosystem protection (e.g., through forest conservation)
•    Often easier to scale quickly

❗ Limitation: Measurement and additionality can be more complex, as they rely on predicting avoided future emissions.

2. Carbon Removal
Removal projects actively extract CO₂ from the atmosphere and store it in biomass, soils, oceans, or geological formations. Nature-based methods like reforestation, soil carbon sequestration, and wetland restoration are complemented by emerging technologies such as direct air capture and mineralization. These solutions are essential for addressing residual emissions and achieving net-zero, particularly for sectors with unavoidable emissions.

Benefits and impacts of removal:
•    Essential for net-zero and beyond (net-negative emissions)
•    Long-term or permanent carbon storage is possible
•    Suitable for offsetting hard-to-abate emissions
•    Often comes with co-benefits (e.g., soil health, reforestation, job creation)

❗ Limitation: Typically more expensive and slower to scale.

Where Do Nature-Based Solutions Fit In?

Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) use ecosystems to avoid or remove carbon—while also restoring biodiversity, supporting water cycles, and strengthening community resilience.

NbS projects can include:

• Reforestation
• Agroforestry
• Regenerative Agriculture
• Forest conservation
• Peatland protection
• Mangrove restoration

• Cost-effective, scalable, and high-impact
• Delivers both carbon and non-carbon benefits (biodiversity, water, jobs)
• Widely accepted in ESG reporting and climate strategies

How Should Companies Choose Between Carbon Removal and Avoidance?

Here are some frequently asked questions (FAQs) and insights to guide your climate strategy:

1. Which is better: carbon removal or carbon avoidance?
   
   Both are needed. Avoidance reduces future emissions, while removal tackles past emissions. Which type of credit to choose also depends on your climate targets— net zero targets require the use of removals. Experts recommend a portfolio approach that uses both increasing the share from avoidance to removal credits towards the net zero target year—balancing cost, credibility, and timing. 
   
   
2. Are carbon removal credits more expensive?
   
   Yes — especially for engineered solutions like DAC. But prices are expected to fall as technologies mature and scale. Nature-based removals (e.g., reforestation) are currently more affordable.
   
   
3. Are carbon avoidance credits credible?
   
   They can be — if you choose the right ones. High-quality carbon avoidance projects can deliver real impact, but credibility depends on robust baselines, clear additionality, and transparent monitoring. The risk? Some projects overstate their impact or rely on shaky assumptions. That’s why it’s essential to work with partners like goodcarbon, who go beyond standard certification frameworks (like Verra, Plan Vivo, Gold Standard, and others) by applying their own rigorous due diligence to ensure quality, integrity, and co-benefits.
   
   
4. How permanent are these solutions?
    
   1. Avoidance can be fully permanent for example for reduced methane emissions in rice projects; permanence risk exists for forest conservation projects.
   2. Removals vary: geological storage is very permanent; forest carbon is subject to reversal risks like fire or logging.

Your Action Plan: How to Use Carbon Credits Strategically

Not sure where to start? Here’s a phased roadmap that aligns with your climate maturity level:

Step 1: Define Your Climate Target 
Decide what target you want to achieve with the investment in high-quality carbon credits. In case of a net zero target, only carbon removal counts. For climate neutrality targets or contribution targets both, avoidance and removal credits are eligible.

Step 2: Build a Blended Portfolio for Today
Select a removal only portfolio to achieve net zero emissions or build a mixed portfolio of avoidance and removal that is cost-effective, credible, and future-aligned. 

Step 3: Plan Ahead with Removals
Increase your share of removal credits and integrate engineered removal to future-proof your carbon strategy and secure early access to limited supply.

What the Data (and Experts) Say

Here’s what leading research tells us:

• Avoidance is necessary now, especially to buy time while removal scales up. (Source: Oxford Principles for Net Zero Aligned Carbon Offsetting, 2020)
• Removals are non-negotiable for long-term net-zero strategies. We can't reach climate goals without pulling carbon out of the air. (Source: IPCC AR6, 2023)
• Companies should use a portfolio approach, balancing low-cost, high-impact avoidance with longer-term removal investments. (Source: McKinsey, “A Blueprint for Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets,” 2022)

Final Thought: It’s Not Either-Or. It’s Yes-And.

Avoidance buys us time.
Removal solves the long-term problem.
Nature-based solutions offer the best of both.

The smartest companies are using both to get ahead — because offsetting is no longer about ticking a box. It’s about building resilience, trust, and real impact.