Is Your Company’s Carbon Sequestration Data Reliable?

Corporate net-zero goals have turned carbon sequestration into a financial instrument.

Companies across the continental United States and around the globe invest heavily in forest carbon storage, soil organic carbon projects, and carbon removal tech to offset GHG emissions.

But here's the uncomfortable truth: not all carbon sequestration data deserves your trust. As climate mitigation benefits become known—and the financial incentives for producing said benefits flow toward projects that promise to remove carbon from the atmosphere—the question isn't just "How much carbon can we sequester?" It's "How do we know the data is real?"

In this article, we explain why trust in carbon sequestration data matters, the problem with most of this data in 2025, how to tell if your data is reliable, and much more.

Why Trust in Carbon Sequestration Data Matters

Carbon markets face a fundamental trust gap.

Scientific uncertainty around biomass estimates, methodology biases in baseline calculations, and inconsistent monitoring protocols create an environment where even well-intentioned buyers struggle to separate legitimate projects from over-credited ones. But the stakes are high.

Companies need verifiable offsets to hit net-zero targets and avoid reputational damage. Investors need to know that carbon sequestered today won't reverse tomorrow and destroy their investments. And government agencies need to ensure taxpayer dollars drive real impact.

Data integrity forms the foundation for credible net-zero pathways. Once you have it, capital will flow to the right projects and deliver genuine climate benefits.

Good news: Sylvera can help. By providing independent intelligence on real carbon performance, our platform transforms raw measurements into actionable insight. The result? Your company can confidently choose projects that have credible carbon impact.

The Problem: Fragmented and Inconsistent Data

Most carbon sequestration data is fragmented and inconsistent, which makes it unreliable. Let's dig deeper into three kinds of sequestration data to see why this is the case.

Forest Carbon Sequestration Data

Forest carbon storage measurements suffer from systematic uncertainty.

Varying biomass models produce wildly different results for the same types of trees. Traditional allometric equations, which estimate tree biomass from diameter and height measurements, rely on limited sample sizes that undervalue large trees and miss crucial carbon stocks. Sampling bias compounds the problem when field plots misrepresent actual forest composition.

As such, forest carbon data carries ±20-30% uncertainty, making it difficult for buyers to determine how much carbon a project truly sequesters.

Soil Carbon Sequestration Data

Soil organic carbon presents additional measurement challenges.

Spatial variability means carbon content can differ dramatically across a single field. Plus, model dependencies introduce assumptions about decomposition rates and carbon flux that may not reflect real-world conditions. And the lack of temporal monitoring—repeated measurements over time—means projects claim permanence without proving it.

In a nutshell, soil health improvements and carbon sequestered within agricultural soils can't be verified with standard protocols, further eroding trust.

Tech-Based CDR data

Tech-based carbon dioxide removal projects often rely on proprietary measurement methods. Engineers monitor sensors and process data. In their own ways. But without transparent verification protocols, buyers can't determine if these systems remove carbon as they should.

Unfortunately, these opaque verification processes undermine confidence in what should be the most measurable form of carbon removal.

The result of these three data issues is predictable: mispriced carbon credits, over-crediting, a lack of buyer confidence, and continued under-investment in high-quality CDR projects.

What Makes Carbon Sequestration Data Reliable?

So, what does reliable carbon sequestration data look like? It's accurate, transparent, verifiable, and comparable. Let's dive into these four important attributes.

1. Accurate

Reliable carbon data starts with precision.

High spatial and temporal resolution captures variation that averaged estimates miss. Then, integration of direct in-situ measurements with remote sensing data creates a full picture.

We should also mention the benefit of specific technologies. Terrestrial LiDAR, for instance, scans forest structure in three dimensions, while multispectral satellite data tracks changes across large areas and advanced modeling connects these data sources into robust estimates.

Sylvera's biomass data is a good example. To date, our team of field research scientists has scanned over 170,000 hectares of forest and analyzed more than 21,000 individual trees. Because of this, our biomass estimates are built on 450 billion ground-truth data points and produce resolution that's 4,000 times higher than satellite-only models.

2. Transparent

Reliable carbon data shows exactly how measurements were taken and what assumptions underpin calculations, shining a light into a typically "black box" situation.

This reproducibility allows independent analysts to validate results rather than accept developer claims on faith. This is especially important in soil and engineered removals.

Sylvera prioritizes methodological transparency by validating data across public and private sources. Doing so creates a framework in which buyers can trace carbon accounting from raw measurements through final credit issuance. The result? Complete transparency.

3. Verifiable

Self-reported developer data has inherent conflicts of interest. There’s the risk of naturally emphasizing positive results and downplaying risks.

Continuous re-assessment catches changes that single-point verification misses: reversals from fire or disease, degradation from encroachment, or simply slower-than-projected growth.

Sylvera's Pre-Issuance Integrity and Delivery modules assess projects before they generate credits, then monitor actual performance against projections. This approach reduces delivery risk and helps investors verify which projects will actually sequester carbon as promised.

4. Comparable

Without standardized assessment frameworks, every carbon project becomes a unique evaluation challenge that slows due diligence and capital deployment.

Common units, harmonized baselines, and consistent monitoring cycles enable investors to compare forest restoration, soil carbon projects, and technological removal on equal footing. When this happens, investors can make smarter investment decisions in less time.

Sylvera's Market Intelligence enables comparability via pricing data, supply and demand movements, and risk-adjusted quality metrics across diverse project types. When buyers can benchmark projects using consistent criteria, market efficiency improves and real climate impact can be made.

Comparing Major Types of Carbon Sequestration Data

‍

‍

Each approach to carbon sequestration measurement has advantages and limitations.

Forest carbon data benefits from established science but struggles with canopy complexity and change over time. Soil carbon projects offer genuine long-term storage potential but demand intensive sampling that many projects skip. And tech-based carbon removal provides engineering precision but often hides behind proprietary walls that prevent validation, which can be a problem.

Hybrid approaches that combine satellite monitoring with field verification offer the most robust framework. But only when implemented with genuine independence and methodological rigor that prevent cherry-picked results from undermining market integrity.

Common Red Flags in Unreliable Carbon Data

Now that we know what reliable carbon sequestration data looks like, let's explore red flags..

• No access to underlying models or raw measurements. Credible carbon accounting makes methodologies and measurements available for independent review. Opacity can signal a lack of rigor or incompetence (or an intentional obscuring of integrity issues).
• Inconsistent updates or opaque revisions. Carbon stocks change over time. Projects that don't provide regular monitoring updates (or quietly revise estimates without explanation) fail basic data integrity standards. Reliable forest carbon storage requires continuous tracking, not one-time measurements extrapolated across decades.
• Unrealistic permanence claims, especially for soil projects. Agricultural practices can change when the economic incentives are altered or land management shifts. Any soil project promising guaranteed permanence without accounting for land-use uncertainty and detailed monitoring protocols deserves skepticism.
• Over-reliance on modeled estimates without field validation. Projects that depend entirely on satellite imagery without field plots, or engineering projections without operational verification, substitute assumptions for measurement. Climate mitigation benefits require actual carbon removal, not theoretical calculations.
• Missing independent assessment or conflicts of interest. Project developers are financially incentivized to maximize credit issuance, which makes their quality evaluations suspect. Registry standards provide frameworks but often lack resources for deep verification. So, carbon markets require independent assessment.

Sylvera's independence provides the counterpoint carbon markets need to build trust.

Case Examples: Good vs. Unreliable Data

Good Data for Carbon Markets

Look for integrated LiDAR and satellite monitoring methodologies that have been validated by third-party sources. This approach represents current best practices.

Sylvera's forest biomass dataset is a good example. Our platform combines terrestrial LiDAR scans that capture three-dimensional forest structure with multispectral satellite imagery to track changes over time. Just as important, all of our data is validated against established allometric models and field measurements, so you can rely on its industry-leading accuracy.

In fact, our platform reduces uncertainty bands from ±20-30% to single-digit percentages. As such, it transforms carbon accounting from an educated guess to rigorous science. Projects assessed through such frameworks provide buyers with defensible carbon claims.

Unreliable Data for Carbon Markets

Be wary of single-season satellite imagery combined with modeled estimates that have zero on-ground calibration. This strategy represents the opposite extreme we just outlined.

Studies that use limited reference data and flawed validation schemes are error prone. Projects that lack clear standards or fail to disclose detailed data on how emissions are calculated often fail to deliver real-world impact. Both scenarios are less than ideal.

The measurable differences in uncertainty, auditability, and risk profile between good and unreliable data directly impact investment returns and climate outcomes.

High-quality data costs more to produce but minimizes the probability of reputational damage. For investors, the added cost helps protect against risk.

How to Evaluate Carbon Sequestration Data for Investment Decisions

Follow this simple, four-step process to make carbon investments with confidence:

1. Assess Methodology

Start with transparency.

Is the measurement process fully documented and replicable? Have peer reviewers validated the approach? Can independent analysts access underlying data and reproduce results?

Stated uncertainty ranges indicate methodological rigor—projects that claim precision without acknowledging measurement limitations haven't done the work. Strong methodology papers describe data collection protocols, statistical analysis, validation steps, and confidence intervals.

2. Check for Verification Independence

The person or entity who validates the data matters as much as the data itself.

Developer self-reporting fails independence tests. Registry verification provides baseline standards but often lacks technical depth for complex projects. Independent verification bodies without financial ties to project economics (like Sylvera) offer the most credible assessment.

Ask whether verifiers have incentives aligned with accuracy or with credit issuance. Why? Because that alignment predicts whether verification will be rigorous or perfunctory.

3. Look at Time Horizons

How frequently does the project update carbon accounting? Annual monitoring catches changes before they become disasters. Multi-year gaps allow problems to compound.

Permanence and reversals require explicit accounting, i.e. buffer pools, insurance mechanisms, or replacement guarantees that make carbon claims durable beyond initial measurement. Projects without clear permanence frameworks assume risk without acknowledging it.

Time horizons for forest service management and harvested wood products demand particular scrutiny, as carbon storage depends on long-term market conditions and policy stability.

4. Review Integration

Sequestration data is more valuable when it's connected to broader carbon accounting systems and market analytics. Check your tech stack and data sources to ensure seamless integration.

Sylvera's Pre-Issuance and Ratings connect technical verification to quality signals in ways that isolated data points cannot. As such, our platform provides the framework companies use to de-risk and benchmark carbon investments.

Why Independent Data Verification Is the Future of Climate Action

Corporate buyers and investors feel pressure from stakeholders to prove their carbon credit purchases deliver climate benefits. Because of this, demand for independent data is high. 

It makes sense. Data-led verification enables transparent supply chains, compliant disclosures under frameworks like CSRD and ISSB, and improved portfolio resilience. That way, the carbon sequestered can be traced from measurement through retirement, the required documentation is accounted for, and investors always know which projects carry unacceptable reversal risk.

Sylvera ensures biomass accuracy, CDR project diligence tools, and market pricing insights to create trust at every stage of the carbon lifecycle. This comprehensive approach provides the necessary infrastructure to attract mainstream capital and promote effective climate action.

Use Data to Combat Climate Change

Trust in carbon sequestration data is about more than measurement accuracy. It's also about governance, transparency, and independence. As more capital flows into carbon removal and nature-based solutions, only verifiable, high-integrity data will underpin real impact.

Sylvera is the bridge between raw science and credible investment by translating complex forest ecology, soil science, and engineering verification into decision frameworks that enable climate action at the scale required.

Book a demo of Sylvera today to see our top-rated platform in action.