Carbon Market Administration

Who keeps carbon markets running, in plain language. Use the toggles to see how roles shift in regulated, voluntary, and blended markets.

Clear roles Simple story Visual cues Integrity
Regulated Market
Voluntary Market
Blended View
Main groups
8
Key checkpoints
4
Integrity gates
3

Plain-Language Story

Rules and guardrails

Governments and registries write the rulebook. They decide how big the carbon budget is, how to measure projects, and who checks the work.

Building the projects

Developers and land stewards team up to protect or restore land. They gather data, follow registry standards, and invite an independent verifier to check results.

Trading and using credits

Once credits are issued, traders and buyers move them through the market. Companies retire credits to match their emissions; NGOs watch for quality and fairness.

Key Players

Governments & Regulators

Set the rules of the game: caps, permits, and reporting so everyone plays fair.

Compliance Entities

Power plants, airlines, and factories that must report emissions and hold enough allowances.

Project Developers

Design and run offset projects, gather evidence, and guide them through approval.

Financial & Trading Community

Brokers, exchanges, and banks that help credits move quickly and set a fair price.

Registries & Verification Bodies

Keep the official record, track every credit, and oversee third-party verification.

End Buyers & Corporations

Purchase credits to meet climate goals or regulations and retire them to claim use.

Land Stewards & Rights Holders

Communities and owners who manage forests or land, decide on participation, and share benefits.

NGOs & Consultants

Advise on transparency, data quality, and community safeguards to keep trust high.

Spotlight

Click a player to see their impact

Choose any card above. We will highlight what they do, who they work with, and where they add the most value.

Where they matter most

Score out of 10

Market Dynamics

Role Weighting by Market Function

View: Regulated Market
Oversight & Rules Supply & Certification Liquidity & Trading Demand & Accountability

Interaction Intensity Across Phases

Stronger bars show phases where the three teams must talk often and agree on evidence.

Capability Coverage Radar

LNG vs Natural Gas

Are they the same?

Almost the same fuel, different format

LNG is natural gas cooled into a liquid for shipping. Both are mostly methane, so their carbon content when burned is essentially the same.

Key difference

Liquefaction adds extra emissions

Chilling gas to -162 C, loading it onto ships, and warming it back up uses energy and can leak methane. That makes LNG's lifecycle footprint higher than pipeline gas.

Bottom line

Lower-carbon than coal, but control leaks

LNG (like natural gas) emits far less CO2 than coal when burned. Keeping methane leaks low is critical to keeping its advantage over other fossil fuels.

1. Liquefy

Energy-intensive cooling

Gas is cooled to become liquid. Power for refrigeration adds CO2; equipment must be tight to avoid methane slip.

2. Ship

Long-haul transport

Specialized tankers move LNG. Shipping fuel use and boil-off gas management affect emissions.

3. Regasify

Warm and deliver

Terminals warm LNG back to gas. Efficient heaters and leak-tight valves keep the footprint lower.

4. Burn

Same combustion profile

Once burned, LNG and pipeline gas produce nearly the same CO2 per unit of energy - much less than coal or oil.

Carbon Footprint: LNG vs Other Fuels

Compare by scenario

Tap a view
Combustion only
Lifecycle (low leak)
Lifecycle (higher leak)

Illustrative values (kg CO2e per million BTU). "Low leak" assumes strong methane controls; "higher leak" shows how poor controls erode the benefit.

Wind, Solar, and LNG: Carbon Reduction

Lifecycle intensity

Wind is near-zero

Modern wind power has very low lifecycle emissions (mostly from materials and construction), roughly 10-15 kg CO2e per MWh.

Solar PV

Low but higher than wind

Solar manufacturing and materials add footprint, typically around 40-60 kg CO2e per MWh over its life.

LNG power

Lower than coal, but fossil

Gas combined-cycle plants using LNG are far below coal on emissions, but still orders of magnitude higher than wind or solar.

Lifecycle carbon intensity

kg CO2e per MWh

Illustrative lifecycle values: Wind ~12, Solar PV ~45, LNG combined-cycle ~450, Coal ~1000 kg CO2e per MWh. Wind and solar reduce emissions by ~99% and ~95% vs coal; LNG power can cut roughly half vs coal if methane is controlled.

EVs vs Gasoline and Diesel

Tailpipe

EVs have zero tailpipe CO2

Electric vehicles emit nothing from the exhaust. Gas and diesel cars release CO2 directly when fuel is burned.

Lifecycle

Grid and build matter

EV lifecycle emissions include battery/vehicle production plus charging electricity. Cleaner grids drive much lower g CO2e per mile.

Bottom line

Strong reductions vs ICE

With typical grids, EVs still cut per-mile emissions versus gasoline or diesel after accounting for vehicle manufacturing and fuel cycles.

Per-mile emissions by scenario

g CO2e per mile
Tailpipe only
Lifecycle (avg grid + vehicle)
Lifecycle (higher-carbon grid + vehicle)

Illustrative values: Tailpipe (EV 0, gasoline ~330, diesel ~300 g CO2e/mi). Lifecycle averages include vehicle manufacturing, battery, and fuel production. Avg grid + vehicle (~180 EV, 410 gasoline, 380 diesel). Higher-carbon grid shifts EV upward (~260 EV) while gasoline/diesel stay similar because grid carbon does not affect fuel combustion.

EV Gasoline Diesel

Exact values (g CO2e/mi)

Tap tabs above to change
Vehicle Value
EV0
Gasoline330
Diesel300

Carbon Sequestration Impact

What it does

Pulls CO2 out or keeps it from the air

Methods range from point-source capture to reforestation, soil carbon, biochar, and direct air capture.

Effectiveness levers

Capture rate and permanence

Higher capture rates and durable storage drive bigger reductions. Energy use and leaks can erode benefits.

Scale

Nature and tech both matter

Nature-based paths can be cost-effective but need land and permanence. Tech capture can scale at point sources if energy and leaks are managed.

Modeled net emissions with sequestration

Adjust capture/permanence
75%

At 75% capture, point-source CCS cuts emissions significantly but leaves some residual plus energy penalty.

Alberta CCUS Push

Goal

Build capture and storage hubs

Alberta is leasing pore space and backing carbon hubs so heavy industry and oil sands can pipe CO2 to shared storage.

Near-term

Roughly 20-25 Mt by 2030

Industry plans (e.g., Pathways) target around 22 Mt of captured CO2 per year by 2030 if projects reach FID.

Longer term

Scale toward net-zero by 2050

Concept is to double capture in the 2030s (around 40 Mt) and keep scaling toward ~70 Mt by 2050 to offset remaining heavy-industry emissions.

Alberta heavy-industry emissions vs CCUS

Megatonnes CO2e/year (illustrative)
2023 baseline (~70 Mt)
2030 plan (~22 Mt capture)
2040 ambition (~40 Mt capture)
2050 net-zero path (~70 Mt capture)

Baseline gross emissions ~70 Mt CO2e/year; no capture applied.

Mark Carney and Transition Finance

Who

Former BoE/BoC governor; co-chair GFANZ

Leads the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, pushing banks, insurers, and investors to align portfolios with 1.5 C pathways.

What he is pushing

Turn pledges into real capital

Emphasis on transition plans, credible offsets, and channeling private finance into clean power, heavy industry decarbonization, and emerging markets.

Canada focus

Transition finance taxonomy

Supports Canadian frameworks to label credible transition investments so capital can flow to oil sands decarbonization, CCUS, and clean electricity.

Pledge vs practical capital mobilization

Trillions (USD) per year equivalent
GFANZ headline vs flow
Near-term practical flow
Canada transition finance

GFANZ headline pledge is large, but mobilized flow is lower; closing the gap requires robust transition plans and policy signals.

Developer-Steward-Registry Collaboration

Initial Collaboration

Developers and land stewards agree on land access and carbon rights, then pick a registry that fits the project.

Project Design & Documentation

Developers draft to registry rules. Stewards supply field data and show how they will manage the land.

Validation, Verification, Issuance

The registry brings in an independent verifier. If it passes, the registry issues numbered credits.

Ongoing Engagement

Projects keep reporting. Stewards and developers maintain performance; the registry tracks and resolves issues.

Summary Table

Player Category Main Role
Governments/RegulatorsDesign, oversee, and enforce carbon markets
Compliance EntitiesReport emissions and retire allowances
Project DevelopersCreate and certify offset projects
Traders/Brokers/BanksFacilitate trading and market access
Registries/AuditorsIssue, track, and verify credits
End Buyers/CorporationsOffset emissions and drive demand
Land Stewards/HoldersHold carbon rights and guide benefit sharing
NGOs/ConsultantsAdvise policy, reporting, and integrity