Version 1.0

Owner: Absolute Climate, Inc.

Original Author: Friedel Pretorius, Co-founder

December, 2024

This document is licensed for use under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

You may copy and redistribute this material in any medium or format, provided: (i) you give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license and indicate if changes were made; (ii) the material is not used for commercial purposes; and (iii) if you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.

</aside>

README

Welcome to the Absolute Carbon Standard v1.0
The commenting period runs from December 20th, 2024 to January 24th, 2025
To leave a comment login with your notion account, if you don’t have a notion account, you can sign-up for one here
Alternatively, comments can be submitted via email to [email protected]
To leave a comment select any text and choose “Comment” from the menu that pops up. You can find more support on commenting here. Please reach out to [email protected] for additional support
All comments will be addressed and publicly responded to by the Absolute Climate team

Executive Summary

The Absolute Carbon Standard (ACS) is a new approach to emissions mitigation assessment, expanding upon existing carbon standards to ensure that project claims match climate impacts. Unlike traditional approaches, which rely on pathway-specific methodologies and fragmented criteria, the Absolute Carbon Standard is the first industry-wide standard that evaluates projects using a universal and objective procedure, and is compatible with net zero targets. This enables apples-to-apples comparisons between projects, even for dramatically different technologies. By focusing on the measurable impact of activities on the carbon cycle, the Absolute Climate Standard enables consistent evaluations, reduces buyer risks, and ensures that mitigation claims are based on climate progress rather than project activities.

The current carbon market is challenged by a lack of standardization. Credits are sold as fungible units, even when projects are assessed using varying baselines, scopes, and evaluation criteria. The result is that project claims often do not match their climate impacts. This makes buyer due diligence more complicated and expensive, and discourages trust in credit quality. Project developers also face uphill battles in differentiating their offerings, as market incentives do not reward high-integrity MRV. These challenges make it harder for new buyers to enter the market, for project developers to bring projects online, and for the carbon removal industry to develop the trust and certainty required to achieve gigaton-scale impact.