𝐀 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 "𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐧"

In carbon engineering, Additionality is the mathematical and legal hurdle that defines a project's integrity. If a project would have happened regardless of carbon revenue, it is not transformative and cannot be issued credits.

Here are the three rigorous tests you should use to separate genuine impact from business-as-usual:

𝟏. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭

The first filter is simple: Is the action required by law? Mandatory compliance, such as meeting emission capture requirements under the Energy Conservation Amendment Act, does not qualify for credits. Carbon finance exists solely to incentivize voluntary actions that exceed legal obligations.

𝟐. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 & 𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭

This is the "Financial Barrier Test". Analyze the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) to determine if a project is bankable without carbon revenue. If a project’s IRR sits below the investor's "Hurdle Rate," carbon credits must be the specific factor that bridges the gap to make the project viable.

𝟑. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧 𝐏𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭

Innovation has a threshold. If a technology has saturated the market, typically exceeding 20% penetration, it is considered standard practice. Carbon finance is reserved for pushing the boundaries of technology, not for subsidizing established industry norms. As adoption increases over time, additionality eventually fails.

Integrity is not a feeling, it is a series of rigorous engineering and financial tests. Passing all three is the only way to move from sustainability news to a high-integrity carbon asset.

👉 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 C² (Csquare) 𝐭𝐨 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝!

🌐 𝐜𝐬𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐨𝐧.𝐜𝐨𝐦

✉️ 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐨@𝐜𝐬𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐞.𝐜𝐨.𝐢𝐧