Claims · Scenario 1
Feedstock contributor
Your operation produces the residue (pulp, husk, parchment, prunings) that becomes biochar. You do not retain verified credits and you do not apply biochar on your own soil.
✓
Use these
Language that is defensible as-is.
- “We contribute [residue type] to a CSI-certified biochar project in [region].”
- “Our residue is transformed into soil carbon by project partners on the [project name] supply chain.”
- “Feedstock provenance is documented per batch in the project's MRV pipeline.”
!
Use with a qualifier
Acceptable only when paired with the right scope or evidence.
- “"Part of a carbon removal project", only with the qualifier that the removal is issued and retired by another party.”
- “"Regenerative supply chain", only when paired with documented practice evidence, not an inference from feedstock alone.”
✗
Don't use these
Will not survive a regulatory or PR challenge.
- “"Carbon neutral coffee"”
- “"Climate positive coffee"”
- “"We remove X tonnes of CO₂ per year" (if credits are retained by another party)”
Regulatory context
EU ECGT explicitly prohibits environmental claims based on offsets the claimant has not purchased. FTC Green Guides require substantiation for any carbon claim. CA AB 1305 triggers disclosure requirements above certain thresholds.