Does your climate strategy follow the warming?

By Carl Thorne-Thomsen, Director of Market Development

October 28, 2026

The Paris Agreement is clear: limiting global temperature increase at 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels would substantially reduce the risks posed by climate change, but higher temperatures will see risks of extreme heat and weather events soar across much of the world. A recent UNEP report shows that we are set to cross that often-referenced 1.5°C threshold in the next few years. So, what now? The scramble to limit overshoot has intensified, and it’s crucial that we cap warming at 2°C or below.

For this scenario, superpollutant mitigation is not a nice-to-have — it’s essential. According to the Superpollutant Roadmap for Corporate Action, published by Carbon Containment Lab and Beyond Alliance, superpollutant emissions need to fall by 50% by 2050 to stay on track. The time is now to reduce these emissions, to limit catastrophic warming in the coming years. It’s our chance to mitigate the planetary changes that scientists tell us will result in near total loss of coral reefs, more deaths due to extreme heat, and a substantially increased probability of an Arctic Ocean without sea-ice.

Projects that generate carbon credits are part of this monumental effort to draw down greenhouse gases (GHGs). However, as of right now, even many of the companies buying carbon credits generated from GHG mitigation projects are ignoring the superpollutant space entirely. But why?

The answer, naturally, depends on who you ask. In my opinion, it has to do with using outdated methods to assess credit quality. For example, many credit buyers are still prioritizing purchases of removal credits. And in practice, a policy to only purchase removal credits amounts to a policy against superpollutant mitigation. It’s simply where the current category math lands when it comes to credits, and it could mean that many companies are unintentionally excluding half of warming from their climate strategies.

Having been in the carbon markets world for a long time, I’ve seen this issue come up again and again. Perhaps businesses are spooked by avoidance credits due to some past REDD+ projects that hit the headlines for the wrong reasons over additionality concerns. And when avoidance credits are on the table, companies often opt for the cheapest ones. But no two projects are the same, and projects targeting superpollutants differ from those targeting carbon dioxide in a number of key ways. For these potent gases, projects that generate avoidance credits aren’t just one option, they are our only viable option.

There is currently no way to sequester refrigerant gases once they are out in the world. For this reason, removal credits don’t exist for these gases. For example, the only way to prevent existing cylinders from eventually rusting and leaking into our atmosphere is with projects that generate avoidance credits.

What about methane? Removing methane from the atmosphere is a real research question — the National Academies published a research agenda on it in 2024, assessing five technologies that would either convert atmospheric methane into a less potent form or physically remove and store it. This serious work is in the first phase of a two-phase study. The second phase would assess whether any of it is technically, economically, or socially viable at climate-relevant scale. That assessment hasn’t happened yet. For now, then, fixing methane emissions after the fact is not an option, and projects plugging the wells that spew methane into our world generate avoidance credits.

At Tradewater, we’ve talked many times about why superpollutants deserve more attention, and as the clock to affect impactful climate action ticks on, it bears repeating. Superpollutants trap up to 12,700 times more heat than CO₂ ton-for-ton over a 20-year period, and account for nearly half of all global warming caused by human activity since 1970. And yet, between 2021 and the third quarter of 2024, they received under 1% of spend.

We’re certainly not saying that companies shouldn’t invest in CO₂ removal and reduction. In fact, we thoroughly recommend a balanced climate portfolio, comprised of complementary solutions that target both near-term and long-term impact. But climate budgets have often concentrated in roughly the opposite direction from where the near-term warming is, and one thing is clear: if the image problem for avoidance credits persists for another decade, the planet will be paying the price.

So, what’s the solution?

In my opinion, the funding should follow the warming. And since superpollutants make up around half of all human-caused warming, it seems appropriate that they should also be around half of climate portfolio spend. Personally, I want to encourage carbon buyers to focus on understanding quality, because there are high-quality projects in all crediting categories, and low-integrity ones as well. A screen that sorts by category simply can’t do the job an integrity screen does. The market has built signals for exactly this purpose — the ICVCM Core Carbon Principles label, ratings agency assessments, registry documentation. We also recommend asking developers direct questions about additionality, measurement, and verification.

There’s still time to stay below the 2°C of warming that will devastate huge swaths of the planet. And there’s still time to limit overshoot of the 1.5°C Paris target, to put our planet on a healing trajectory. These scenarios both require fast and decisive action, with a strategic focus on the gases that do the most harm, in the shortest time. It’s an emergency brake that simply can’t be pushed without cutting superpollutant emissions. So, companies that want to affect the most urgent and impactful change should ask themselves, “does our climate strategy follow the warming?”