What the US Climate Policy Shift Means for Carbon Removals and Business Credibility
Recent United States policy announcements have introduced uncertainty around climate action. In early 2025, the new federal administration issued executive orders to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement and reprioritise domestic energy development.
Analyses indicate that rolling back key climate policies could add up to 4 billion tonnes of additional CO₂ emissions in the US by 2030, an increase that would severely challenge global 1.5°C targets and effectively erase years of clean-tech progress.
These moves imply that the US may no longer formally target net-zero emissions by 2050. Analysts also note that scrapping the 2050 net-zero commitment cuts the share of the global emissions under national net-zero pledges from about 93% down to 78%.
Yet, in the face of this policy shift, many US states and global partners are pushing ahead with stronger climate disclosure rules and supply-chain emissions reporting.
Globally, businesses still face tightening regulations (such as the EU’s carbon border adjustment and corporate reporting rules) and growing investor scrutiny. In this environment, the latest federal rollbacks can serve as a wake-up call: companies with interest in green initiatives and net-zero commitments must not rely solely on government-driven incentives or on carbon offsets alone.
Rather, this moment presents an opportunity to strengthen climate resilience by doubling down on decarbonising operations, enabling efficiency, adopting circularity and value chain transparency.
Rethinking Carbon Offsets and Removals
For many firms, voluntary carbon credits and offsets have been a key tool for meeting pledges. However, relying heavily on carbon removal credits carries well-known pitfalls.
Recent independent studies underscore the challenges. For example, an analysis of major corporate purchasers found that 87% of the offsets they retired “carry a high risk of not providing real and additional emissions reductions”. This quality gap has rightly drawn scrutiny for many years. As the integrity of carbon offsetting is greatly dependent on the quality of underlying credits, if firms continue to claim meeting their targets while primarily buying low-quality credits, it risks being labelled greenwashing.
For example, revegetation projects in regions with, in some cases, questionable regulations around logging and developments, or in other cases, frequent bushfires carry inherent permanence and reveral risks.
Prominent climate experts emphasise the GHG mitigation hierarchy: organisations should first avoid and reduce emissions in their own operations and value chain and consider using high-quality carbon credits only to offset hard-to-abate emissions.
Indeed, the United Nations and Science-Based Targets Initiative both advise that offsets are a last resort, not a primary strategy. In our view, companies must therefore strategically balance resource use towards both offsets as well as emissions reductions within operations under direct control. Even in the voluntary market, the carbon-credit community agrees: credits can fund important projects, but only if they represent genuine emissions reductions or removals.
Given this backdrop, the potential policy rollback in the U.S. should not be seen simply as a signal to abandon climate commitments. Instead, it underscores the need for high-integrity data and reporting in corporate climate claims. With federal incentives in flux, companies must increasingly rely on their own governance and credibility to signal credible sustainability actions.
Transparent data systems and verified information have now become more critical than ever. The voluntary market itself is calling for reforms: stakeholders are pushing for third-party auditing, standardised methodologies, and rigorous accounting (e.g. ISO standards, GHG Protocol, Verra, etc.) to prevent cherry-picking of credits and ensure accountability. High-quality data infrastructures help companies and auditors confirm that every claimed reduction is real, traceable, and additional.
What the US Climate Policy Shift Means for Carbon Removals and Business Credibility
Recent United States policy announcements have introduced uncertainty around climate action. In early 2025, the new federal administration issued executive orders to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement and reprioritise domestic energy development.
Analyses indicate that rolling back key climate policies could add up to 4 billion tonnes of additional CO₂ emissions in the US by 2030, an increase that would severely challenge global 1.5°C targets and effectively erase years of clean-tech progress.
These moves imply that the US may no longer formally target net-zero emissions by 2050. Analysts also note that scrapping the 2050 net-zero commitment cuts the share of the global emissions under national net-zero pledges from about 93% down to 78%.
Yet, in the face of this policy shift, many US states and global partners are pushing ahead with stronger climate disclosure rules and supply-chain emissions reporting.
Globally, businesses still face tightening regulations (such as the EU’s carbon border adjustment and corporate reporting rules) and growing investor scrutiny. In this environment, the latest federal rollbacks can serve as a wake-up call: companies with interest in green initiatives and net-zero commitments must not rely solely on government-driven incentives or on carbon offsets alone.
Rather, this moment presents an opportunity to strengthen climate resilience by doubling down on decarbonising operations, enabling efficiency, adopting circularity and value chain transparency.
Rethinking Carbon Offsets and Removals
For many firms, voluntary carbon credits and offsets have been a key tool for meeting pledges. However, relying heavily on carbon removal credits carries well-known pitfalls.
Recent independent studies underscore the challenges. For example, an analysis of major corporate purchasers found that 87% of the offsets they retired “carry a high risk of not providing real and additional emissions reductions”. This quality gap has rightly drawn scrutiny for many years. As the integrity of carbon offsetting is greatly dependent on the quality of underlying credits, if firms continue to claim meeting their targets while primarily buying low-quality credits, it risks being labelled greenwashing.
For example, revegetation projects in regions with, in some cases, questionable regulations around logging and developments, or in other cases, frequent bushfires carry inherent permanence and reveral risks.
Prominent climate experts emphasise the GHG mitigation hierarchy: organisations should first avoid and reduce emissions in their own operations and value chain and consider using high-quality carbon credits only to offset hard-to-abate emissions.
Indeed, the United Nations and Science-Based Targets Initiative both advise that offsets are a last resort, not a primary strategy. In our view, companies must therefore strategically balance resource use towards both offsets as well as emissions reductions within operations under direct control. Even in the voluntary market, the carbon-credit community agrees: credits can fund important projects, but only if they represent genuine emissions reductions or removals.
Given this backdrop, the potential policy rollback in the U.S. should not be seen simply as a signal to abandon climate commitments. Instead, it underscores the need for high-integrity data and reporting in corporate climate claims. With federal incentives in flux, companies must increasingly rely on their own governance and credibility to signal credible sustainability actions.
Transparent data systems and verified information have now become more critical than ever. The voluntary market itself is calling for reforms: stakeholders are pushing for third-party auditing, standardised methodologies, and rigorous accounting (e.g. ISO standards, GHG Protocol, Verra, etc.) to prevent cherry-picking of credits and ensure accountability. High-quality data infrastructures help companies and auditors confirm that every claimed reduction is real, traceable, and additional.
What the US Climate Policy Shift Means for Carbon Removals and Business Credibility
Recent United States policy announcements have introduced uncertainty around climate action. In early 2025, the new federal administration issued executive orders to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement and reprioritise domestic energy development.
Analyses indicate that rolling back key climate policies could add up to 4 billion tonnes of additional CO₂ emissions in the US by 2030, an increase that would severely challenge global 1.5°C targets and effectively erase years of clean-tech progress.
These moves imply that the US may no longer formally target net-zero emissions by 2050. Analysts also note that scrapping the 2050 net-zero commitment cuts the share of the global emissions under national net-zero pledges from about 93% down to 78%.
Yet, in the face of this policy shift, many US states and global partners are pushing ahead with stronger climate disclosure rules and supply-chain emissions reporting.
Globally, businesses still face tightening regulations (such as the EU’s carbon border adjustment and corporate reporting rules) and growing investor scrutiny. In this environment, the latest federal rollbacks can serve as a wake-up call: companies with interest in green initiatives and net-zero commitments must not rely solely on government-driven incentives or on carbon offsets alone.
Rather, this moment presents an opportunity to strengthen climate resilience by doubling down on decarbonising operations, enabling efficiency, adopting circularity and value chain transparency.
Rethinking Carbon Offsets and Removals
For many firms, voluntary carbon credits and offsets have been a key tool for meeting pledges. However, relying heavily on carbon removal credits carries well-known pitfalls.
Recent independent studies underscore the challenges. For example, an analysis of major corporate purchasers found that 87% of the offsets they retired “carry a high risk of not providing real and additional emissions reductions”. This quality gap has rightly drawn scrutiny for many years. As the integrity of carbon offsetting is greatly dependent on the quality of underlying credits, if firms continue to claim meeting their targets while primarily buying low-quality credits, it risks being labelled greenwashing.
For example, revegetation projects in regions with, in some cases, questionable regulations around logging and developments, or in other cases, frequent bushfires carry inherent permanence and reveral risks.
Prominent climate experts emphasise the GHG mitigation hierarchy: organisations should first avoid and reduce emissions in their own operations and value chain and consider using high-quality carbon credits only to offset hard-to-abate emissions.
Indeed, the United Nations and Science-Based Targets Initiative both advise that offsets are a last resort, not a primary strategy. In our view, companies must therefore strategically balance resource use towards both offsets as well as emissions reductions within operations under direct control. Even in the voluntary market, the carbon-credit community agrees: credits can fund important projects, but only if they represent genuine emissions reductions or removals.
Given this backdrop, the potential policy rollback in the U.S. should not be seen simply as a signal to abandon climate commitments. Instead, it underscores the need for high-integrity data and reporting in corporate climate claims. With federal incentives in flux, companies must increasingly rely on their own governance and credibility to signal credible sustainability actions.
Transparent data systems and verified information have now become more critical than ever. The voluntary market itself is calling for reforms: stakeholders are pushing for third-party auditing, standardised methodologies, and rigorous accounting (e.g. ISO standards, GHG Protocol, Verra, etc.) to prevent cherry-picking of credits and ensure accountability. High-quality data infrastructures help companies and auditors confirm that every claimed reduction is real, traceable, and additional.
Embracing Circularity and Supply-Chain Action
With offsets under the microscope, solutions-focused companies are turning even more attention to circular economy and supply-chain strategies. After all, some of the biggest sources of emissions come from how we make and use products. Consider that an organisation’s upstream supply-chain emissions are often many times larger than its own factory or office emissions.
The U.S. EPA cites data showing that, on average, a company’s supply-chain (Scope 3) emissions are about 11.4 times higher than its direct operational (Scope 1+2) emissions, roughly 92% of the total. Another analysis notes that value-chain emissions account for around 90% of a typical company’s footprint. In short, if a firm truly wants to reduce its carbon impact, it must engage its suppliers and product lifecycle.
Circular economy principles directly address these value-chain impacts. By reducing virgin raw-material extraction and increasing reuse, recycling and remanufacturing, companies can dramatically cut supply-chain emissions.
Global studies underscore the potential: about 70% of the world’s GHG emissions come from material extraction and use. Transitioning to circular use of key materials (like steel, cement, plastics and aluminium) could reduce global greenhouse gases by roughly 40% by 2050.
For business, this translates into strategies such as sourcing secondary (recycled) materials, designing products for longevity, and rethinking packaging and end-of-life processes.
Practically speaking, a circular strategy might involve substituting virgin feedstocks with circular alternatives, investing in product-as-a-service models, or partnering on industry-wide take-back programs. For example, a consumer goods company could increase the recycled content in its plastic containers; an electronics firm could refurbish old devices into like-new condition; a food company could capture methane from waste as biogas. Each of these measures directly avoids emissions from new production or waste, much different from an offset credit, which works indirectly.
Of course, to make such claims credibly, companies must also prove their circularity. Transparency is key: stakeholders want to know that a recycled material is truly recycled (not just theoretical), or that a product’s carbon footprint was accurately reduced. This again demands data: solid inventory of inputs and outputs, certified recycled content, and traceable chain-of-custody. In practice, firms must collect detailed supplier data, require environmental performance clauses, or even co-invest in suppliers to ensure cleaner production.
In short, circularity gives firms more direct control over emissions. High-integrity reporting then validates those efforts. When done right, these actions build genuine climate impact and credibility. Focusing on circular supply chains is a “no-regrets” approach that yields both climate and business benefits, making climate claims robust and verifiable.
Engineered Carbon Removals and Operational Decarbonisation: Making Climate Progress Credible
Businesses willing to support new technologies for carbon removals, while keeping progress towards climate targets in check, can combine operational emissions reductions with investment in engineered carbon removal technologies such as Direct Air Capture (DAC). DAC technologies are designed to remove CO₂ directly from the atmosphere, offering a measurable and verifiable way to achieve reduce emissions. DAC credits are considered high-quality because they are based on direct, quantifiable removals rather than estimated reductions. However, DAC is still a nascent technology with significant energy demands and high costs. Each DAC carbon credit can cost over $100 to $200 USD per tonne removed, substantially higher than conventional offsets.
These high costs are compounded by recent US climate funding cuts, which are jeopardising projects in emerging technologies like DAC. Many DAC startups and large-scale demonstration projects rely heavily on government incentives to remain viable. Without consistent funding, scaling up DAC to make it more affordable will take longer, putting more pressure on businesses to balance their climate portfolios wisely.
Given these constraints, companies should consider a hybrid approach: using DAC credits where verifiable removals are needed, while simultaneously focusing on operational improvements to reduce emissions at the source.
Operational decarbonisation remains one of the most cost-effective and immediate ways to cut emissions. Upgrading equipment, improving energy efficiency, switching to cleaner fuels, and optimising processes often pay for themselves through reduced energy costs. Many studies and reports consistently show that even well-run facilities can unlock 10–20% energy savings within a few years.
By combining operational decarbonisation with a carefully chosen portfolio of high-quality credits, companies can demonstrate real, credible progress toward their climate goals. This strategy balances near-term action with long-term innovation, delivering transparency and trust to stakeholders while supporting the development of breakthrough technologies that the world will increasingly rely on to reach net-zero.
Embracing Circularity and Supply-Chain Action
With offsets under the microscope, solutions-focused companies are turning even more attention to circular economy and supply-chain strategies. After all, some of the biggest sources of emissions come from how we make and use products. Consider that an organisation’s upstream supply-chain emissions are often many times larger than its own factory or office emissions.
The U.S. EPA cites data showing that, on average, a company’s supply-chain (Scope 3) emissions are about 11.4 times higher than its direct operational (Scope 1+2) emissions, roughly 92% of the total. Another analysis notes that value-chain emissions account for around 90% of a typical company’s footprint. In short, if a firm truly wants to reduce its carbon impact, it must engage its suppliers and product lifecycle.
Circular economy principles directly address these value-chain impacts. By reducing virgin raw-material extraction and increasing reuse, recycling and remanufacturing, companies can dramatically cut supply-chain emissions.
Global studies underscore the potential: about 70% of the world’s GHG emissions come from material extraction and use. Transitioning to circular use of key materials (like steel, cement, plastics and aluminium) could reduce global greenhouse gases by roughly 40% by 2050.
For business, this translates into strategies such as sourcing secondary (recycled) materials, designing products for longevity, and rethinking packaging and end-of-life processes.
Practically speaking, a circular strategy might involve substituting virgin feedstocks with circular alternatives, investing in product-as-a-service models, or partnering on industry-wide take-back programs. For example, a consumer goods company could increase the recycled content in its plastic containers; an electronics firm could refurbish old devices into like-new condition; a food company could capture methane from waste as biogas. Each of these measures directly avoids emissions from new production or waste, much different from an offset credit, which works indirectly.
Of course, to make such claims credibly, companies must also prove their circularity. Transparency is key: stakeholders want to know that a recycled material is truly recycled (not just theoretical), or that a product’s carbon footprint was accurately reduced. This again demands data: solid inventory of inputs and outputs, certified recycled content, and traceable chain-of-custody. In practice, firms must collect detailed supplier data, require environmental performance clauses, or even co-invest in suppliers to ensure cleaner production.
In short, circularity gives firms more direct control over emissions. High-integrity reporting then validates those efforts. When done right, these actions build genuine climate impact and credibility. Focusing on circular supply chains is a “no-regrets” approach that yields both climate and business benefits, making climate claims robust and verifiable.
Engineered Carbon Removals and Operational Decarbonisation: Making Climate Progress Credible
Businesses willing to support new technologies for carbon removals, while keeping progress towards climate targets in check, can combine operational emissions reductions with investment in engineered carbon removal technologies such as Direct Air Capture (DAC). DAC technologies are designed to remove CO₂ directly from the atmosphere, offering a measurable and verifiable way to achieve reduce emissions. DAC credits are considered high-quality because they are based on direct, quantifiable removals rather than estimated reductions. However, DAC is still a nascent technology with significant energy demands and high costs. Each DAC carbon credit can cost over $100 to $200 USD per tonne removed, substantially higher than conventional offsets.
These high costs are compounded by recent US climate funding cuts, which are jeopardising projects in emerging technologies like DAC. Many DAC startups and large-scale demonstration projects rely heavily on government incentives to remain viable. Without consistent funding, scaling up DAC to make it more affordable will take longer, putting more pressure on businesses to balance their climate portfolios wisely.
Given these constraints, companies should consider a hybrid approach: using DAC credits where verifiable removals are needed, while simultaneously focusing on operational improvements to reduce emissions at the source.
Operational decarbonisation remains one of the most cost-effective and immediate ways to cut emissions. Upgrading equipment, improving energy efficiency, switching to cleaner fuels, and optimising processes often pay for themselves through reduced energy costs. Many studies and reports consistently show that even well-run facilities can unlock 10–20% energy savings within a few years.
By combining operational decarbonisation with a carefully chosen portfolio of high-quality credits, companies can demonstrate real, credible progress toward their climate goals. This strategy balances near-term action with long-term innovation, delivering transparency and trust to stakeholders while supporting the development of breakthrough technologies that the world will increasingly rely on to reach net-zero.
Embracing Circularity and Supply-Chain Action
With offsets under the microscope, solutions-focused companies are turning even more attention to circular economy and supply-chain strategies. After all, some of the biggest sources of emissions come from how we make and use products. Consider that an organisation’s upstream supply-chain emissions are often many times larger than its own factory or office emissions.
The U.S. EPA cites data showing that, on average, a company’s supply-chain (Scope 3) emissions are about 11.4 times higher than its direct operational (Scope 1+2) emissions, roughly 92% of the total. Another analysis notes that value-chain emissions account for around 90% of a typical company’s footprint. In short, if a firm truly wants to reduce its carbon impact, it must engage its suppliers and product lifecycle.
Circular economy principles directly address these value-chain impacts. By reducing virgin raw-material extraction and increasing reuse, recycling and remanufacturing, companies can dramatically cut supply-chain emissions.
Global studies underscore the potential: about 70% of the world’s GHG emissions come from material extraction and use. Transitioning to circular use of key materials (like steel, cement, plastics and aluminium) could reduce global greenhouse gases by roughly 40% by 2050.
For business, this translates into strategies such as sourcing secondary (recycled) materials, designing products for longevity, and rethinking packaging and end-of-life processes.
Practically speaking, a circular strategy might involve substituting virgin feedstocks with circular alternatives, investing in product-as-a-service models, or partnering on industry-wide take-back programs. For example, a consumer goods company could increase the recycled content in its plastic containers; an electronics firm could refurbish old devices into like-new condition; a food company could capture methane from waste as biogas. Each of these measures directly avoids emissions from new production or waste, much different from an offset credit, which works indirectly.
Of course, to make such claims credibly, companies must also prove their circularity. Transparency is key: stakeholders want to know that a recycled material is truly recycled (not just theoretical), or that a product’s carbon footprint was accurately reduced. This again demands data: solid inventory of inputs and outputs, certified recycled content, and traceable chain-of-custody. In practice, firms must collect detailed supplier data, require environmental performance clauses, or even co-invest in suppliers to ensure cleaner production.
In short, circularity gives firms more direct control over emissions. High-integrity reporting then validates those efforts. When done right, these actions build genuine climate impact and credibility. Focusing on circular supply chains is a “no-regrets” approach that yields both climate and business benefits, making climate claims robust and verifiable.
Engineered Carbon Removals and Operational Decarbonisation: Making Climate Progress Credible
Businesses willing to support new technologies for carbon removals, while keeping progress towards climate targets in check, can combine operational emissions reductions with investment in engineered carbon removal technologies such as Direct Air Capture (DAC). DAC technologies are designed to remove CO₂ directly from the atmosphere, offering a measurable and verifiable way to achieve reduce emissions. DAC credits are considered high-quality because they are based on direct, quantifiable removals rather than estimated reductions. However, DAC is still a nascent technology with significant energy demands and high costs. Each DAC carbon credit can cost over $100 to $200 USD per tonne removed, substantially higher than conventional offsets.
These high costs are compounded by recent US climate funding cuts, which are jeopardising projects in emerging technologies like DAC. Many DAC startups and large-scale demonstration projects rely heavily on government incentives to remain viable. Without consistent funding, scaling up DAC to make it more affordable will take longer, putting more pressure on businesses to balance their climate portfolios wisely.
Given these constraints, companies should consider a hybrid approach: using DAC credits where verifiable removals are needed, while simultaneously focusing on operational improvements to reduce emissions at the source.
Operational decarbonisation remains one of the most cost-effective and immediate ways to cut emissions. Upgrading equipment, improving energy efficiency, switching to cleaner fuels, and optimising processes often pay for themselves through reduced energy costs. Many studies and reports consistently show that even well-run facilities can unlock 10–20% energy savings within a few years.
By combining operational decarbonisation with a carefully chosen portfolio of high-quality credits, companies can demonstrate real, credible progress toward their climate goals. This strategy balances near-term action with long-term innovation, delivering transparency and trust to stakeholders while supporting the development of breakthrough technologies that the world will increasingly rely on to reach net-zero.
Carbon Central: Tracking Emissions and Enabling GOs
NoviqTech’s Carbon Central platform embodies these principles of transparency and circularity. Carbon Central is a cloud-based, blockchain-enabled emissions monitoring solution that integrates data across operations, energy, and materials. Companies use it to continuously log production metrics (like fuel use, material inputs, process outputs) in an immutable ledger. With this data foundation, Carbon Central can automatically calculate emissions footprints at each step and issue digital certificates.
In practice, a manufacturer could connect its energy meters and production sensors to Carbon Central as well as upload spreadsheets manually, which then validates and stores the data. If that manufacturer uses renewable power, Carbon Central can mint and cancel the corresponding GO, locking its renewable MWh to that company’s report. Likewise, if a raw material is certified recycled, the platform can attach a traceable batch certificate to the product order.
This level of traceability has real strategic advantages. Carbon Central’s GO capability provides a strategic advantage by enabling full traceability and transparency. Chemicals recycler (Global Resource Recovery NT) uses Carbon Central’s digital twins (digital replica of their operations) to monitor its glycol and amine recycling process.
The platform tracks recycling processes and created source verification certificates for each batch of chemicals processed. Those batch-level certificates effectively act as guarantees: each recycled batch is uniquely logged, so downstream customers know exactly which recycled inputs they received.
The system also provides audit-ready reporting. All activity in Carbon Central is time-stamped and auditable. The platform can even connect to IoT devices and enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems to automatically ingest data, reducing manual errors. In the semiconductor industry, for instance, Carbon Central tracks facility energy use and yields AI-driven insights to optimise operations. The embedded blockchain ledger ensures that every entry (whether energy use or material flow) is tamper-proof, satisfying regulators and auditors alike.
Importantly, Carbon Central is designed for global supply chains. It supports international data standards and can span multiple facilities or countries. This underscores that even as policy environments differ, the same underlying principle applies collect high-quality data on a decentralised ledger, and issue verified certificates that any stakeholder can trust.
Conclusion: Building Resilient, Trustworthy Climate Claims
The recent policy shifts in the U.S. underscore that companies cannot assume stable external incentives for climate action. However, they can turn this uncertainty into an opportunity. By prioritising internal decarbonisation, circularity, high quality offsetting, and transparent reporting, firms can strengthen their climate resilience globally. Emphasising traceability (through data and certificates) over purchasing only offsets guards against both greenwashing accusations and policy volatility.
In practice, this means investing in high-integrity data systems and supply-chain engagement now. For B2B decision-makers, it pays to ask: Can we verify every tonne of claimed reduction? The answer lies in proven tools and methodologies.
In the end, credible climate leadership is about substance over spin. By integrating circular design, setting science-based goals, and using robust traceability (like Guarantees of Origin), businesses will not only weather shifting policies but actually thrive. This approach earns real impact, defends against regulatory change, and builds long-term stakeholder confidence.
In an era of policy uncertainty, companies that double down on high-integrity climate practices today will create enduring value, for their bottom line and for the planet.
Carbon Central: Tracking Emissions and Enabling GOs
NoviqTech’s Carbon Central platform embodies these principles of transparency and circularity. Carbon Central is a cloud-based, blockchain-enabled emissions monitoring solution that integrates data across operations, energy, and materials. Companies use it to continuously log production metrics (like fuel use, material inputs, process outputs) in an immutable ledger. With this data foundation, Carbon Central can automatically calculate emissions footprints at each step and issue digital certificates.
In practice, a manufacturer could connect its energy meters and production sensors to Carbon Central as well as upload spreadsheets manually, which then validates and stores the data. If that manufacturer uses renewable power, Carbon Central can mint and cancel the corresponding GO, locking its renewable MWh to that company’s report. Likewise, if a raw material is certified recycled, the platform can attach a traceable batch certificate to the product order.
This level of traceability has real strategic advantages. Carbon Central’s GO capability provides a strategic advantage by enabling full traceability and transparency. Chemicals recycler (Global Resource Recovery NT) uses Carbon Central’s digital twins (digital replica of their operations) to monitor its glycol and amine recycling process.
The platform tracks recycling processes and created source verification certificates for each batch of chemicals processed. Those batch-level certificates effectively act as guarantees: each recycled batch is uniquely logged, so downstream customers know exactly which recycled inputs they received.
The system also provides audit-ready reporting. All activity in Carbon Central is time-stamped and auditable. The platform can even connect to IoT devices and enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems to automatically ingest data, reducing manual errors. In the semiconductor industry, for instance, Carbon Central tracks facility energy use and yields AI-driven insights to optimise operations. The embedded blockchain ledger ensures that every entry (whether energy use or material flow) is tamper-proof, satisfying regulators and auditors alike.
Importantly, Carbon Central is designed for global supply chains. It supports international data standards and can span multiple facilities or countries. This underscores that even as policy environments differ, the same underlying principle applies collect high-quality data on a decentralised ledger, and issue verified certificates that any stakeholder can trust.
Conclusion: Building Resilient, Trustworthy Climate Claims
The recent policy shifts in the U.S. underscore that companies cannot assume stable external incentives for climate action. However, they can turn this uncertainty into an opportunity. By prioritising internal decarbonisation, circularity, high quality offsetting, and transparent reporting, firms can strengthen their climate resilience globally. Emphasising traceability (through data and certificates) over purchasing only offsets guards against both greenwashing accusations and policy volatility.
In practice, this means investing in high-integrity data systems and supply-chain engagement now. For B2B decision-makers, it pays to ask: Can we verify every tonne of claimed reduction? The answer lies in proven tools and methodologies.
In the end, credible climate leadership is about substance over spin. By integrating circular design, setting science-based goals, and using robust traceability (like Guarantees of Origin), businesses will not only weather shifting policies but actually thrive. This approach earns real impact, defends against regulatory change, and builds long-term stakeholder confidence.
In an era of policy uncertainty, companies that double down on high-integrity climate practices today will create enduring value, for their bottom line and for the planet.
Carbon Central: Tracking Emissions and Enabling GOs
NoviqTech’s Carbon Central platform embodies these principles of transparency and circularity. Carbon Central is a cloud-based, blockchain-enabled emissions monitoring solution that integrates data across operations, energy, and materials. Companies use it to continuously log production metrics (like fuel use, material inputs, process outputs) in an immutable ledger. With this data foundation, Carbon Central can automatically calculate emissions footprints at each step and issue digital certificates.
In practice, a manufacturer could connect its energy meters and production sensors to Carbon Central as well as upload spreadsheets manually, which then validates and stores the data. If that manufacturer uses renewable power, Carbon Central can mint and cancel the corresponding GO, locking its renewable MWh to that company’s report. Likewise, if a raw material is certified recycled, the platform can attach a traceable batch certificate to the product order.
This level of traceability has real strategic advantages. Carbon Central’s GO capability provides a strategic advantage by enabling full traceability and transparency. Chemicals recycler (Global Resource Recovery NT) uses Carbon Central’s digital twins (digital replica of their operations) to monitor its glycol and amine recycling process.
The platform tracks recycling processes and created source verification certificates for each batch of chemicals processed. Those batch-level certificates effectively act as guarantees: each recycled batch is uniquely logged, so downstream customers know exactly which recycled inputs they received.
The system also provides audit-ready reporting. All activity in Carbon Central is time-stamped and auditable. The platform can even connect to IoT devices and enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems to automatically ingest data, reducing manual errors. In the semiconductor industry, for instance, Carbon Central tracks facility energy use and yields AI-driven insights to optimise operations. The embedded blockchain ledger ensures that every entry (whether energy use or material flow) is tamper-proof, satisfying regulators and auditors alike.
Importantly, Carbon Central is designed for global supply chains. It supports international data standards and can span multiple facilities or countries. This underscores that even as policy environments differ, the same underlying principle applies collect high-quality data on a decentralised ledger, and issue verified certificates that any stakeholder can trust.
Conclusion: Building Resilient, Trustworthy Climate Claims
The recent policy shifts in the U.S. underscore that companies cannot assume stable external incentives for climate action. However, they can turn this uncertainty into an opportunity. By prioritising internal decarbonisation, circularity, high quality offsetting, and transparent reporting, firms can strengthen their climate resilience globally. Emphasising traceability (through data and certificates) over purchasing only offsets guards against both greenwashing accusations and policy volatility.
In practice, this means investing in high-integrity data systems and supply-chain engagement now. For B2B decision-makers, it pays to ask: Can we verify every tonne of claimed reduction? The answer lies in proven tools and methodologies.
In the end, credible climate leadership is about substance over spin. By integrating circular design, setting science-based goals, and using robust traceability (like Guarantees of Origin), businesses will not only weather shifting policies but actually thrive. This approach earns real impact, defends against regulatory change, and builds long-term stakeholder confidence.
In an era of policy uncertainty, companies that double down on high-integrity climate practices today will create enduring value, for their bottom line and for the planet.
More Circular Economy
More Circular Economy
More Circular Economy
