The Mid-2026 Carbon Market Data Report: What the Retirement Numbers Actually Show

Four respected data providers published H1 figures for the same market and told four different stories. This carbon market data report for 2026 reconciles them rather than picking whichever headline sounds best, because understanding why the numbers diverge is more useful to an institutional buyer than memorising any single figure.

A Note on Method: How This 2026 Carbon Market Research Was Compiled

Before presenting a single figure, it is worth stating plainly what this report is and is not. It is not a press release restating one organization's headline number as settled fact. It is a reconciliation exercise across four independent data providers: AlliedOffsets, Ecosystem Marketplace (a Forest Trends initiative), Abatable, and Carbon Direct. Their H1 2026 figures for the same market disagree with each other in ways that are individually defensible and collectively confusing if you only read one of them.

That disagreement is not a data quality failure. It is a structural feature of a market where no single central exchange records every transaction, where a growing share of activity is deliberately anonymized, and where "the voluntary carbon market" means something different depending on whether you are counting registry issuances, OTC disclosures, or on-platform retirements.

Voluntary Carbon Market Statistics 2026: The Headline Numbers, Side by Side

← Scroll table horizontally on mobile

Read across a single row and each figure looks authoritative. Read across the table as a whole and a more interesting picture emerges: a market that is simultaneously setting volume records (AlliedOffsets), showing quarter-over-quarter softness (Abatable), missing its own stated ambitions (Carbon Direct), and shifting decisively toward quality even as headline volume metrics disagree.

Reconciling the Carbon Credit Retirement Data

The most jarring contradiction in the table above sits between AlliedOffsets' "strongest H1 on record" framing and Abatable's 24% quarterly decline. Both can be true simultaneously, and understanding why requires looking past the topline number to what each is actually counting.

AlliedOffsets' H1 2026 figure of 104 million tCO2e was materially shaped by a small number of very large transactions. Hess Corporation's retirement of 12.5 million Guyana Jurisdictional REDD+ credits in May 2026 alone represents roughly 12% of the entire H1 total. Jurisdictional REDD+ programs, which credit emissions reductions across an entire government-administered region rather than a single project site, generate retirement events at a scale that individual project-based credits simply cannot match. A single large jurisdictional transaction can single-handedly swing a half-year aggregate figure in a way that a hundred smaller transactions would not.

Abatable's rolling three-quarter average, by contrast, smooths across a longer window and is measuring quarter-over-quarter momentum rather than half-year totals against the prior year's half. Their data shows a more dramatic quarter-to-quarter decline than the annual comparison suggests, consistent with known seasonality where Q4 retirements spike around corporate reporting deadlines and subsequent quarters show a natural pullback.

The Quality Signal That All Four Providers Agree On: CCP-Approved Credit Issuance

Here is where the data actually converges rather than diverges, and it may be the single most important trend in this report. Every provider's data, regardless of how they count retirement volume, points in the same direction on quality.

AlliedOffsets recorded CCP-approved credit issuances growing 64% year-over-year in H1 2026, while rejected credit volumes fell 67% over the same period. That is not a subtle shift; it represents project developers actively redesigning methodologies to clear ICVCM's Core Carbon Principles bar rather than continuing to issue credits under approaches likely to be excluded.

Carbon Direct's data shows the same pattern from the demand side: buyers increasingly concentrating spend on defensible, high-durability categories even as overall retirement volume growth stays muted. AlliedOffsets' finding that repeat buyers now represent 50.6% of the CDR market specifically, a new record, tells a complementary story: this is not speculative first-time purchasing driven by short-term sentiment, but sustained procurement relationships with buyers who have evaluated a supplier once and are coming back.

Put together, the 2026 data describes a market transitioning from "how much volume can we move" to "how much of this volume will actually survive an audit." That transition compresses headline growth numbers in the near term while, if it holds, strengthening the market's long-run credibility.

The REDD+ Reckoning, Three Years Later

No single event shapes 2026's data more than something that happened in 2023: Bloomberg's investigation into Verra's Kariba REDD+ project in Zimbabwe, which found that more than half of the roughly 27 million credits issued had likely overstated avoided deforestation relative to what would have occurred anyway. Verra's own subsequent internal review substantially confirmed the core finding.

The market-wide consequence shows up clearly in the multi-year data: REDD+ retirements have declined in most years since. But the 2026 picture is more textured than simple decline. Early-year data shows REDD+ activity consolidating around a smaller number of high-credibility jurisdictional programs, described by CarbonBetter's analysts as the category becoming "smaller and sharper" rather than staging a broad recovery. Meanwhile, Improved Forest Management, an adjacent forestry category with generally more conservative baseline-setting, has seen retirements roughly double since 2023, partially, though not completely, absorbing demand that REDD+ lost.

Hess Corporation's 12.5 million-credit May 2026 Guyana retirement, mentioned above as a data-reconciliation curiosity, is also directly relevant here: Guyana's jurisdictional REDD+ program is frequently cited by market participants as one of the more rigorously governed large-scale REDD+ programs precisely because it operates at national jurisdiction level with government-backed MRV infrastructure, rather than the project-level baseline-setting that proved exploitable in cases like Kariba.

The Commitment-Retirement Gap

Perhaps the most consequential single data point in this report is one that received comparatively little headline attention when Carbon Direct first published it: SBTi-aligned corporate climate commitments surged 227% in the eighteen months leading to mid-2025, while actual carbon credit retirements over comparable periods fell 7%.

Read those two figures together and a structural problem becomes visible. Companies are setting climate targets considerably faster than they are executing the procurement activity those targets will eventually require. Carbon Direct's analysis notes that over 80% of high-durability carbon removal capacity currently under development is at risk of never becoming commercially realized without additional offtake commitments, meaning the supply side is, in a very real sense, waiting on buyers who have made public promises but not yet signed the contracts.

This is not necessarily evidence of bad faith. Building internal procurement infrastructure, securing budget approval, and negotiating multi-year offtake agreements takes real organizational time that a target announcement does not require. But the gap matters enormously for anyone timing a market entry: every quarter this gap persists is a quarter of demand accumulating behind a set of 2030 deadlines that are not going to move. When that demand does convert from commitment to contract (and SBTi's Net Zero Standard V2.0 interim removal requirements make eventual conversion close to mandatory for over 10,000 committed companies), the supply-constrained categories at the top of the quality spectrum are the ones that will feel it first.

What Full-Year 2024 Tells Us About Reading the VCM H1 2026 Report

It is worth stepping back one additional year, because Ecosystem Marketplace's most recent full-year comparison offers a useful precedent for how to read a market sending mixed volume signals. Their State of the Voluntary Carbon Market 2025 report found 2024 total transaction value fell to approximately $535 million, a 29% year-over-year decline, with transaction volumes down 25% and average prices down only 5.5%.

The detail that matters is the gap between the 25% volume decline and the 5.5% price decline: if the market were in genuine structural retreat, both figures would typically move together as sellers cut prices to move inventory in a shrinking market. Instead, EM's analysts read the pattern as a "legacy market" (older, weaker methodologies) winding down in volume terms while price levels held up because the credits that did transact were increasingly the higher-quality ones buyers were still willing to pay for. Reccessary's contemporaneous coverage described the same dataset as the VCM hitting a six-year low in transaction volume while explicitly noting retirements remained strong. That language, read carefully, describes the exact same bifurcation this report's H1 2026 data continues to show.

What This Means for Buyers Positioning Through Year-End 2026

Three implications follow directly from reconciling this data rather than picking whichever single headline supports a preferred narrative.

First, volume-based market-size headlines should be treated with real caution until you know the underlying panel and time window. A record H1 and a 24% quarterly decline can both be accurate simultaneously; neither alone tells you what demand looks like going into H2.

Second, the quality-shift signal is the most consistent finding across every provider in this report, and it is the one buyers should weight most heavily in procurement strategy. Sixty-four percent growth in CCP-approved issuance alongside a 67% drop in rejected volume is not a fluke measured by one methodology; it shows up, in different forms, in Carbon Direct's demand-side data and Ecosystem Marketplace's price-resilience finding from the prior year as well.

Third, the commitment-retirement gap is the single figure most likely to define pricing dynamics through 2027 and 2028. A market where stated demand is growing 227% while executed retirements fall 7% is a market accumulating pressure, not releasing it. Buyers who convert commitment into contracted supply earlier are trading the current, still relatively open pricing environment against the compressed environment that arrives once several thousand SBTi-committed companies attempt to execute their removal mandates in the same multi-year window.

For continuously updated pricing across the categories discussed in this report, rather than the periodic snapshot format that necessarily underlies any research report including this one, the CRBN.CREDIT terminal tracks live EU ETS and voluntary market data, and our Price Forecast Engine extends the bear and bull case scenarios implied by the trends above out to 2030.

---

FAQs: Mid-2026 Carbon Market Data

Informational purposes only. Figures are attributed to the originating data providers and reflect their published reporting at the time of writing. Providers use different panels and windows, so totals are directional rather than exact.