How the Carbon Market Creates “One Tonne” - CO₂e and DMRV

Carbon markets express many different carbon credits using the same unit: one tonne. Yet two credits representing one tonne are not necessarily created in the same way or supported by the same level of confidence.

More precisely, the unit used in carbon markets is 1tCO₂e, or one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent. Unlike an ounce of gold or a barrel of oil, it cannot simply be placed on a scale. One tonne becomes usable in the market only after field data are processed through a methodology, conversion factors, a baseline, and calculation rules, and the result is verified.

A tonne in the carbon market is not a number that is simply found. It is a number produced through data, methodology, calculation, and verification.

This process can be expressed as a conceptual formula:

One tonne in the carbon market = Measurement data × Methodology × Conversion calculation

The multiplication signs do not represent a literal mathematical formula. They mean that it is difficult to produce a credible tonne if any one of these three elements is missing.

• Measurement data are values actually observed and recorded in the field, such as electricity generation, fuel consumption, or methane captured. Equipment accuracy and calibration, collection frequency, and missing data all affect data quality.
• A methodology defines which data to use, how to set the baseline for what would have happened without the project, and how to handle missing values and uncertainty. The amount of emissions reduction recognized from the same field data can differ depending on the applicable methodology and boundary.
• A conversion calculation translates different activity data and greenhouse gases into the common unit of CO₂e. Examples include applying an emission factor to electricity generation or applying a GWP value to methane emissions.

For example, even if the electricity generated by a solar mini-grid is measured accurately, that number alone is not an emissions reduction. A methodology must determine what kind of electricity the project displaced, and the avoided emissions must be calculated in CO₂e using the generation data and an emission factor. The underlying data and calculation process must then be verified before the result can support carbon-credit issuance.

Measurement data are therefore the starting point for facts, a methodology is the common rule for interpreting those facts, and a conversion calculation turns the result into a common tradable unit. DMRV records how these three stages connect and makes that connection reproducible.

First, what is CO₂e?

Carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas. Methane, nitrous oxide, and refrigerant gases differ in both their warming effect and how long they remain in the atmosphere.

The Global Warming Potential (GWP) is used to compare these different gases in a single unit. It converts the climate effect of a greenhouse gas over a defined period into CO₂e by comparing it with carbon dioxide. The IPCC likewise explains CO₂-equivalent emissions as emissions of each greenhouse gas multiplied by its GWP for the relevant time horizon. IPCC glossary

Even when a project reduces methane emissions in the field, that value does not immediately become a quantity of carbon credits. The methane must first be monitored and converted into CO₂e using the applicable methodology and GWP value.

Additional conditions must then be met to create carbon credits.

• Establish a baseline for the emissions that would have occurred without the project.
• Monitor actual activity and equipment data at the required intervals.
• Apply an approved methodology, emission factors, and GWP values to calculate reductions or removals.
• Manage missing and abnormal values, equipment calibration, and data-change histories.
• Have an independent verifier review the source data and calculations.
• Have the standard body assess compliance and issue credits in a registry.

A one-tonne carbon credit is therefore not a single measured value but the result of a connected body of evidence. Confidence in that number depends on which data were collected and how often, which methodology and factors were applied, and whether an independent third party can reproduce the result.

What XPRIZE showed: technology alone is not enough

The XPRIZE Carbon Removal illustrates this point well. The $100 million competition ran from 2021 to 2025, and finalists had to demonstrate more than 1,000 net tonnes of carbon removal during the final year.

In April 2025, Mati Carbon won the $50 million grand prize for accelerating a natural weathering process by applying crushed basalt to farmland in India. XPRIZE assessed operational performance, sustainability, cost, and scalability together, and highlighted Mati Carbon's scientifically rigorous monitoring and verification approach as a major strength. XPRIZE Carbon Removal results

The lesson is not simply that verification matters more than technology. It is that a strong technology must prove the amount it removes with credible data before the market can recognize it.

Claiming to have removed carbon and demonstrating 1,000 net tonnes of removal are very different tasks. Emissions from energy inputs and transport must be deducted, the durability of storage must be explained, field samples must adequately represent the project, and uncertainties in the calculation must be assessed.

For a climate outcome created by technology to become an asset, it ultimately needs measurable results and reproducible evidence.

Blockchain cannot come before field data

Carbon-market participants are exploring ways to represent credits as digital tokens and use blockchain to manage issuance, transfer, and retirement records. Blockchain can make recorded transaction histories difficult to alter and allow multiple participants to view the same record.

What blockchain can protect, however, is integrity after a record has been created. It does not automatically guarantee the accuracy or quality of the data entered into the blockchain.

Values from an incorrectly installed sensor, records from a meter that is past its calibration period, or calculations based on arbitrary adjustments to missing data can all be stored on a blockchain. Poor-quality input can simply become a poor-quality number preserved in a tamper-resistant form.

The critical stage therefore comes before the data are recorded on the blockchain.

• Which device produced the data?
• Was the device installed and calibrated correctly?
• When, where, and how frequently were the data collected?
• If a source value was changed, who changed it and why?
• Can the versions of the methodology and factors used in the calculation be identified?
• Can a verifier trace the final figure back to the source data?

DMRV (Digital Monitoring, Reporting and Verification) connects this chain of evidence in a digital environment.

DMRV is production infrastructure, not software added after credit issuance

This is where the role of DMRV needs to be reconsidered. DMRV is not a program used only to prepare a report after a mitigation project has finished or to add information to a credit that has already been issued. It is part of the foundation required from the outset to produce a tonne that the market can recognize.

A carbon-mitigation project actually involves two production processes. The first creates a real reduction or removal in the field through activities such as solar generation, methane capture, or carbon removal. The second monitors that outcome, calculates it under a methodology, and turns it into evidence that an independent third party can reproduce.

The first process can create a genuine climate benefit on its own. But if the result cannot be quantified in a consistent unit, compared with what would have happened without the project, and traced back to source data, it is difficult to recognize it as a market-ready 1tCO₂e. A tonne of carbon credit is produced only when the physical outcome and the evidence supporting that outcome are both in place.

DMRV supports this second production process. It connects source values to their time, location, and equipment; manages missing and abnormal data; and records the versions of the methodology and calculations applied. In other words, it continuously produces and manages the chain of evidence linking the final emissions reduction back to the field data.

DMRV does not create the physical reduction itself or automatically decide whether credits will be issued. Additionality, methodology eligibility, independent verification, and assessment by a standard body remain separate requirements. DMRV's role is to produce the data needed for those decisions in a consistent form from the beginning and to make the calculations and verification reproducible.

This role is especially important for projects such as solar mini-grids, where many small systems are distributed across different locations. If people must visit every site, transcribe meter readings, and collect supporting documents manually, management costs increase along with the risk of missing data and input errors. Continuous collection of meter and operating data, combined with checks on abnormal values and equipment status, makes it easier to aggregate small systems into one verifiable project.

Even when two projects generate the same amount of electricity from the same type of equipment, they are unlikely to be valued equally if only one can answer the following questions:

• Are source generation data and equipment-operation histories retained?
• Can the baseline and emissions-reduction calculation be reproduced?
• Can missing data, revisions, and calibration records be reviewed?
• Can evidence be provided in the formats required by verifiers and standard bodies?
• Can issued credits be traced back to the field data that produced them?

In this sense, DMRV is not accessory software added to a credit. It is evidence-production infrastructure that turns field-level mitigation outcomes into verifiable tonnes.

Samton-DMRV starts by making the numbers trustworthy

This is why Samton is building its DMRV system from the outset of its solar mini-grid project in Kenya. DMRV is not treated as a tool to be added later at the credit-issuance stage, but as project infrastructure that must accumulate evidence as operations take place.

Collecting electricity generation and consumption data is not enough. The project must continually explain which meter generated each value, whether the data were transmitted correctly, where the value was used in the methodology, and how it connects to the final emissions reduction.

Samton-DMRV links field equipment and operating data, methodology-based calculations, quality control, and verification evidence in one flow. This creates the evidence needed for carbon-credit issuance and establishes a data foundation for communicating project performance to climate-finance and development-finance providers.

One tonne traded in the carbon market is an outcome, not a starting point. Only when a field activity becomes trustworthy data and that data becomes a verifiable emissions reduction does 1tCO₂e become a carbon asset.

For the basic structure of DMRV and how corporate data can become a carbon asset, see What Is DMRV?. For how credit values differ according to regulatory eligibility and mitigation quality, continue with The Difference Between Emissions Allowances and Carbon Credits.