TD Bank’s Carbon Credits Purchase to Combat Wildfire Risks

TD Bank commits to decade-long carbon removal deal with Charm Industrial

TD Bank has purchased 44,000 metric tons of carbon removal credits from Charm Industrial in a 10-year agreement. Deliveries begin in 2029. The deal marks Charm’s entry into the Canadian market and represents a growing corporate appetite for permanent carbon sequestration rather than conventional offsets.

Charm Industrial converts agricultural waste and forest residues into bio-oil and biochar through fast pyrolysis. The company injects bio-oil into deep geological formations for permanent storage. Biochar goes into soil, where it traps carbon for centuries while improving soil health. This approach removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere rather than simply avoiding new emissions.

For UK businesses, this transaction illustrates how carbon removal is becoming a recognised component of corporate climate strategies. However, the technology remains early-stage, expensive, and largely confined to North American markets. Understanding these developments matters because procurement standards and tender requirements increasingly distinguish between carbon offsetting and carbon removal.

How Charm Industrial’s pyrolysis technology works in practice

Charm Industrial heats biomass above 500 degrees Celsius without oxygen. This fast pyrolysis process breaks down crop residues like corn stover and wheat straw, along with forestry waste such as branches and small trees. The result is bio-oil and biochar. Approximately 80 percent of the processed biomass yields material suitable for long-term carbon storage.

The company injects bio-oil into abandoned oil wells and deep rock formations. These geological sites lock away carbon dioxide for thousands of years. Biochar goes to farmland, where it enhances soil quality and stores carbon for centuries. As of January 2025, Charm had removed 11,666 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent using this method.

This biomass carbon removal and storage approach addresses three issues simultaneously. It sequesters carbon dioxide captured by plants during growth. It prevents emissions from open burning of agricultural waste. It reduces wildfire intensity by clearing excess forest fuel. The latter point has attracted attention from the US Forest Service, which is piloting the technology in California.

Peter Reinhardt founded Charm after selling his previous tech company. He states there is an opportunity to solve several problems at once, between reducing forest fires, cleaning up old oil assets, and removing atmospheric carbon dioxide through bio-oil sequestration. The technology differs from tree planting or soil carbon programmes because storage is verifiable, permanent, and measurable through public ledgers.

Recent commercial agreements signal market traction for carbon removal

Charm secured $54 million from Frontier Climate in 2023 for 112,000 tons of carbon dioxide removal. Frontier Climate is an advanced market commitment initiative backed by Stripe, Alphabet, Shopify, Meta, and McKinsey. In the same year, Charm raised $100 million in Series B funding to expand production capacity.

In January 2025, Google signed what the company described as its largest-ever carbon removal contract with Charm. Specific volumes were not disclosed. Shortly after, TD Bank announced its 44,000 metric ton purchase. Deliveries run from 2029 through 2038. The agreement includes planned operations in Canada, where Charm will partner with farmers to process agricultural residues and manage wildfire risk in forested areas.

TD Bank will use the credits to address Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions. Scope 1 covers direct emissions from owned or controlled sources. Scope 2 covers indirect emissions from purchased electricity, steam, heating, and cooling. The bank has not stated whether it will use carbon removal credits for Scope 3 emissions, which cover value chain activities.

Meanwhile, Charm is running a pilot with the US Forest Service in Inyo National Forest, California. The project processes biomass from 538 acres of thinned forest. Materials include branches, shrubs, and small trees too small for lumber but large enough to fuel wildfires. The Forest Service aims to thin one million acres per year across California. Charm’s modular pyrolyzers offer a potential outlet for this material, which currently has limited commercial use.

Commercial and regulatory implications for UK businesses

This transaction reflects a broader shift in how large organisations approach carbon accounting. Carbon removal differs from carbon offsetting in both mechanism and durability. Offsets typically fund projects that avoid or reduce emissions elsewhere, such as renewable energy installations or forest conservation. Carbon removal physically extracts carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and stores it permanently.

UK companies face increasing scrutiny over offset claims. The Advertising Standards Authority has ruled against several firms for misleading environmental claims. The Competition and Markets Authority published guidance in 2021 warning businesses against overstating the climate benefits of offsets. Carbon removal offers a more defensible position because storage is measurable and permanent, though it remains significantly more expensive than offsets.

For businesses tendering for public sector contracts, the distinction matters. Procurement Policy Note 06/21 requires suppliers bidding for contracts above £5 million to publish a carbon reduction plan. The guidance does not explicitly mandate carbon removal, but it does require credible pathways to net zero. As standards tighten, procurement teams may begin to differentiate between offset-reliant plans and those incorporating removal.

However, carbon removal technologies remain costly. Charm’s prices are not publicly disclosed, but industry estimates for biomass pyrolysis range from £150 to £400 per ton of carbon dioxide removed. This compares to offset prices of £10 to £50 per ton for projects like cookstove distribution or afforestation. Few UK SMEs can absorb these costs at scale, particularly given current economic pressures.

Access also remains limited. Charm operates in the United States and is beginning to explore Canada. No equivalent commercial biomass pyrolysis operations exist in the UK. British companies seeking similar carbon removal options would need to purchase credits internationally, which introduces currency risk, verification complexity, and supply chain transparency questions.

Nevertheless, tracking these developments provides useful context. Large corporations are allocating capital to permanent carbon removal. This behaviour shapes emerging market norms. Over time, it may influence customer expectations, investor requirements, and regulatory frameworks. UK businesses should understand the distinction between offsets and removal, even if immediate adoption is not feasible.

Key facts about Charm Industrial and the TD Bank agreement

• Charm Industrial uses fast pyrolysis to convert agricultural waste and forest residues into bio-oil and biochar for permanent carbon storage.
• TD Bank has purchased 44,000 metric tons of carbon removal credits, with deliveries scheduled from 2029 to 2038.
• As of January 2025, Charm had removed 11,666 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent through its operations.
• Google signed its largest-ever carbon removal contract with Charm in January 2025, though specific volumes were not disclosed.
• Charm is piloting technology with the US Forest Service in California to process wildfire thinning residues from 538 acres of forest.
• The company received $54 million from Frontier Climate in 2023 for 112,000 tons of carbon dioxide removal capacity.
• Approximately 80 percent of biomass processed through Charm’s pyrolysis yields durable carbon storage in the form of bio-oil or biochar.

Wildfire mitigation adds co-benefit to carbon removal value proposition

Charm’s approach addresses wildfire risk by removing excess forest fuel before it can burn. Logging operations leave behind branches, shrubs, and small trees known as slash piles. These materials are often burned in controlled fires, which releases carbon dioxide and particulate matter. Alternatively, they remain in place, increasing wildfire intensity when ignition occurs.

Processing this material through pyrolysis avoids emissions from open burning while creating a revenue stream for forest management. The US Forest Service is exploring this model as part of California’s wildfire mitigation strategy. California aims to thin one million acres of forest per year to reduce fire risk. Finding economically viable uses for thinned material is a longstanding challenge.

Charm’s modular pyrolyzers can be deployed near thinning sites, reducing transport emissions and costs. Future units are designed to process ten times the volume of current models. This scalability is critical for matching the pace of forest thinning required to meet state goals. The Forest Service has not yet decided whether to claim carbon removal credits from these activities, but it acknowledges the technology’s potential.

For UK businesses, this co-benefit model illustrates how carbon removal can align with other environmental and economic priorities. Wildfire mitigation improves air quality, protects infrastructure, and reduces insurance costs. It creates jobs in rural areas, particularly for workers transitioning from oil and gas sectors. Revenue sharing arrangements with farmers and landowners provide local economic incentives.

However, scaling this approach in the UK would require different biomass sources. British agriculture produces crop residues, but volumes and logistics differ from North American grain belts. Forestry residues exist, particularly from thinning operations in commercial plantations, but infrastructure for collection and processing is limited. Any UK application would need to account for these constraints.

Carbon accounting standards continue to evolve around removal and offsets

The distinction between carbon offsetting and carbon removal is becoming more prominent in accounting standards. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol, which underpins most corporate carbon reporting, does not yet provide detailed guidance on carbon removal claims. This creates uncertainty for businesses trying to integrate removal into their climate strategies.

In the UK, companies reporting under the Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting regulations must disclose Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. Scope 3 reporting is voluntary for most firms, though it becomes mandatory under certain conditions. Neither framework explicitly addresses carbon removal purchases, leaving companies to determine how these should be reflected in disclosures.

The Science Based Targets initiative, which validates corporate net zero commitments, distinguishes between emissions reduction and neutralisation. Neutralisation refers to removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to counterbalance residual emissions. The initiative allows carbon removal for neutralisation but not as a substitute for near-term reduction targets. This positions removal as a complement to emissions reduction, not a replacement.

For businesses developing carbon reduction plans, this distinction has practical implications. A plan that relies heavily on offsets to meet near-term targets may not satisfy Science Based Targets criteria or procurement standards. A plan that prioritises emissions reduction and uses removal only for residual emissions aligns more closely with emerging best practice.

As standards develop, UK businesses should monitor guidance from the Financial Reporting Council, the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, and the International Sustainability Standards Board. These bodies are working to harmonise carbon accounting and disclosure requirements. Understanding how carbon removal fits within these frameworks will help businesses make informed decisions about climate strategy and reporting.

What UK businesses should consider regarding carbon removal

Carbon removal technologies like Charm Industrial’s pyrolysis are not yet accessible or affordable for most UK SMEs. However, understanding the landscape provides context for strategic planning. Large corporations are investing in removal because they recognise that offsetting alone will not deliver net zero. This behaviour signals where the market is heading.

For businesses in manufacturing, food production, or logistics, the first priority remains reducing direct emissions. Energy efficiency improvements, renewable electricity procurement, and fleet electrification deliver measurable cost savings while lowering carbon footprints. These actions should take precedence over exploring carbon removal, which remains expensive and complex.

However, companies with public sector supply chain exposure should pay attention. Procurement standards are tightening. Procurement Policy Note 06/21 already requires carbon reduction plans for large contracts. Future iterations may incorporate more explicit requirements around carbon removal or neutralisation. Understanding the difference between offsets and removal positions businesses to respond effectively.

Similarly, firms with net zero commitments should review whether their strategies distinguish between reduction and neutralisation. A credible plan addresses emissions at source first, uses offsets sparingly for hard-to-abate activities, and considers removal only for genuinely residual emissions. This hierarchy aligns with Science Based Targets guidance and reduces reputational risk associated with greenwashing claims.

For businesses exploring carbon removal, verification is critical. Technologies vary widely in permanence, measurability, and environmental impact. Biochar and bio-oil sequestration offer more durable storage than soil carbon programmes or forest planting, but they cost more. Understanding these trade-offs helps businesses allocate limited climate budgets effectively.

Finally, monitoring policy developments is worthwhile. The UK government has consulted on a carbon removals certification scheme, though implementation timelines remain unclear. Such a scheme would provide standardised verification and potentially reduce costs through market transparency. Staying informed about these developments allows businesses to plan for future opportunities.

Where to find further information on carbon removal and climate policy

The UK government’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero publishes guidance on carbon accounting, net zero strategy, and emerging technologies. Its consultation responses and policy papers provide insight into regulatory direction. The department’s website is a primary resource for businesses navigating climate policy.

The Science Based Targets initiative offers detailed guidance on corporate net zero commitments, including how to treat carbon removal and offsets. Its Net-Zero Standard published in 2021 distinguishes between value chain mitigation and neutralisation. This framework is widely adopted by multinational corporations and increasingly referenced in procurement standards.

The Royal Society published a major report on greenhouse gas removal in 2018, updated in subsequent years. It provides accessible explanations of different removal technologies, including biomass pyrolysis, direct air capture, and enhanced weathering. The report assesses costs, scalability, and environmental impacts for each approach.

For businesses subject to Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting, the UK government’s environmental reporting guidelines on gov.uk explain current requirements. These guidelines do not yet cover carbon removal in detail, but they establish the baseline for compliance and provide links to supporting resources.

Industry bodies such as the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment and the Chartered Institute of Procurement and Supply offer training and guidance on sustainability in business operations. Both organisations are updating their materials to reflect the evolving distinction between offsets and removal.