Our Carbon Removal Plan 

Download as PDF

Emissions Analysis and Carbon Removal Opportunities. 
Northshore Project Partners Inc. | Version 1.0 | March 2026 

At Project Partners, we are committed to helping accelerate the energy transition through projects and research​. We want to see a future where British Columbia’s circular economy is powered by renewable energy. This includes working to reduce our own emissions and support other companies in doing the same. We report our emissions annually, purchase carbon removals to address remaining emissions, and ultimately plan to retire more credits than we emit. As many carbon removal technologies are not yet mature, we identify promising opportunities and support their advancement. As of now, the most promising pathways for carbon removal and permanent storage are Direct Air Capture (DAC), Enhanced Rock Weathering (ERW), Ocean Alkalinization (OA), and biomass carbon removal. Given the uncertainty about which approaches will prove most effective, a diversified portfolio of carbon removal options is a justified strategy today. Advanced Market Commitments are particularly beneficial for companies developing these technologies, as they provide upfront funding. We expect that the state of Carbon Removal Technologies will evolve over time, and we commit to updating this document annually. 

Calculating Emissions 

Appropriately addressing emissions through reductions and carbon removal purchases requires a clear understanding of both the sources and magnitude of our emissions. With a goal of removing significantly more CO₂ than we emit, it is essential to establish an accurate baseline. 

Effective emissions reporting requires accuracy, completeness, and consistency, identifying all sources within the chosen scope and applying the same methods over time to allow for valid comparisons and track progress. Emissions are reported in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e). 

In Canada, mandatory emissions reporting applies only to facilities emitting more than 10,000 tonnes of CO₂e per year, under Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program¹. Nevertheless, we encourage all our customers to measure and report their emissions and to take responsibility for their emissions, regardless of scale. Every tonne avoided contributes to the collective effort, and incremental reductions can together amount to meaningful impact. 

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol², developed by the World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development, is the global standard for carbon accounting. It divides emissions into three scopes depending on whether they occur directly from company operations or indirectly through their value chain^3,4: 

• Scope 1: Direct emissions from sources owned by the company including furnaces, vehicles, and machines used in production (combustion occurs on site) 

• Scope 2: Emissions from grid electricity, heat, steam, or cooling purchased by the company (combustion occurs elsewhere) 

• Scope 3: All other indirect emissions such as those from purchased products and services, business travel, employee commuting, work-from-home emissions, etc. 

Current climate goals of companies often target scope 1 and scope 2 emissions, however, scope 3 emissions are increasingly being considered in corporate climate reporting and strategies. As scope 3 emissions include many different kinds of indirect emission, these can be further broken down into the following categories⁵: 

Upstream scope 3 emissions  

1. Purchased goods and services 

2. Capital goods 

3. Fuel- and energy-related activities (not included in scope 1 or scope 2) 

4. Upstream transportation and distribution 

5. Waste generated in operations 

6. Business travel 

7. Employee commuting 

8. Upstream leased assets 

Downstream scope 3 emissions  

9. Downstream transportation and distribution 

10. Processing of sold products 

11. Use of sold products 

12. End-of-life treatment of sold products 

13. Downstream leased assets 

14. Franchises 

15. Investments 

As a company that only provides services and works fully remote, all of Project Partners’ emissions fall under Scope 3. We report business travel (scope 3, category 6), home office energy consumption (scope 3, category 3), electronics purchased (scope 3, category 1), services purchased (scope 3, category 1), and business meals (scope 3, category 1). 

After identifying all contributions to emissions, the associated emissions in CO₂e can be estimated with emission calculators. As our emissions originate mainly from air travel and home office energy use, uncertainties around emission calculation, and our aim to have a positive climate impact far beyond compensating our emission, an approximate estimate is sufficient for our purposes. We can assist our customers with more detailed emissions estimates using, for example, local grid emissions factors, if required. 

We work with our customers to measure their emissions, prioritize high-impact reductions, and select carbon removal credits to address residual emissions. After projects are concluded, we estimate the impact the project had in terms of emissions avoided or contributions made. We do not use these to “offset” our own emissions, but report them for transparency following Greenhouse Gas Protocol for Project Accounting⁷.  

Reducing Emissions 

Reducing emissions at the source should always be prioritized. Every tonne of CO₂ that does not get emitted, does not contribute to global warming. Yet some emissions remain unavoidable for now, particularly from the electricity grid and necessary air travel. Our commitment is to pursue meaningful emission reductions and compensations, with the understanding that best practices are still developing and our strategy may shift as we learn more. 

We continually look for ways to cut our own emissions, though our options are limited since they primarily come from grid electricity and air travel. Nevertheless, we are committed to minimizing air travel and building a primarily local customer base here in British Columbia. For customers, any Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions that can be addressed through direct decarbonization should take priority, following Science Based Targets initiative recommendations⁸. It can be beneficial in this case to identify measures that lead to the largest emission reductions at the lowest costs, and thus obtain a marginal abatement cost curve. 

Why we don’t buy carbon offsets 

Carbon offsets are credits issued based on projects that reduce, remove, or avoid a unit of greenhouse gas emissions, one metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent, that can be purchased to compensate emissions generated elsewhere⁹. Important criteria are: 

1. additionality: whether the project would exist without the purchase of the credit 

2. permanence: the durability of the emissions reduction 

3. leakage: whether the project avoided or reduced emissions in one place but lead to increased emissions elsewhere 

The usefulness and integrity of carbon offsets has been critized^10,11 with evidence showing that they have substantially smaller impact than promised and often none at all^12,13. 

The principal criticism of carbon offsets concerns their dependence on counterfactual baselines, estimating what would have occurred absent the intervention, which introduces significant uncertainty into their claimed climate impact¹⁴. With buyers seeking to offset their emissions at low costs¹⁵ and project developers maximizing the credits they can sell, this leads to continuous overestimations of the climate benefits of credits. Numerous studies and reports showed that the emissions reduced are routinely overestimated by an order of magnitude^16–18. A study analyzing over 2000 carbon offset projects found that less than 16% of the credits led to real emission reductions¹⁹. 

For companies, relying on low-quality carbon offsets can be a legal liability when used to justify “carbon-neutral” advertising as they increasingly face lawsuits on greenwashing and consumer protection^20,21. 

Identifying truly high-quality carbon offsets remains challenging given the for-profit nature and non-transparent methods of existing rating services in addition to a lack of a universally accepted standardized carbon credit quality assessment methodology²², leaving individually vetting projects by the buyer as the inefficient alternative^23,24. 

Giving Green lists initially focusing on carbon offsets as one of their past mistakes²⁵, and now recommends policy and technology change funding opportunities²⁶. The University of California set out to develop a quality carbon offset procurement program in 2018 in a three-year, all-campus, interdisciplinary research effort which resulted in the decision to move away from carbon offsets altogether and instead focus on direct decarbonization and a fee per ton emitted²⁷.  

Offsetting anthropogenic CO₂ emissions with passive carbon sinks in forests and oceans to claim net-zero emissions, can lead to continued warming, therefore it is important to acknowledge the need for restoring one tonne of CO₂ permanently to the solid Earth for every tonne generated from fossil sources²⁸. A storage time of 1000 years is needed to neutralize continued fossil CO₂ emissions under net zero emissions²⁹. Durable emission reduction and stabilization of global temperatures require measures balancing of emissions and removals of the same time scale as CO₂ contributes to warming in the atmosphere^30,31. While lower durability carbon offsets cannot be considered to compensate current or historical emissions, they can still add value, for example for biodiversity and air quality reasons. 

The latest recommendations by the IPCC are focusing on direct emission reductions, minimal reliance on offsets, and scrutiny of use and risks of CO₂ removal³². 

Similarly, the Science Based Targets initiative recommends to avoid using carbon offsets to count towards their science based emission reduction targets⁸. However, it recommends permanently neutralizing remaining emissions with measures that remove carbon from the atmosphere and permanently store it.  

Why we buy carbon removals instead 

Under the strictest interpretation of neutralizing emissions that we want to apply for our own emissions, meaning we attempt to restore the atmosphere to the state it was in before those emissions occurred (all else being equal), the available options are still in early stages of technological development, and most carbon offset approaches do not meet this standard. One of the most effective mechanisms for advancing carbon removal technologies is the Advanced Market Commitment. By forming purchase agreements for credits to be delivered in the future, buyers provide early-stage companies with the capital they need to develop and scale while simultaneously establishing a credible demand signal. 

Direct air capture is currently the most straightforward method to remove CO₂. Ambient air is drawn into collectors by fans, where CO₂ binds to a sorbent material. Applying heat releases the captured CO₂, which is then permanently stored in geological structures, while the sorbent is regenerated and reused. We acknowledge that direct air capture remains unproven at scale today, constrained by substantial energy demands, high costs, and the challenge of efficiently capturing CO₂ from the atmosphere where it is highly diluted.  

Enhanced Rock Weathering and Ocean Alkalinization can justifiably store CO₂ on geological timescales, contributing to carbon removal and permanent storage. Enhanced Rock Weathering involves spreading crushed silicate rock across farmland, where it reacts with carbonic acid, which is formed from rainwater and atmospheric CO₂, and mineralizes into stable carbonates. Ocean Alkalinization involves introducing alkaline rock into seawater, where it binds CO₂ while simultaneously helping to counteract ocean acidification. Unlike direct air capture, where carbon removal can be precisely measured and verified, these two processes are more difficult to quantify with certainty. Field trials are currently underway to better understand its real-world effectiveness and quantify the amount of CO₂ removed from the atmosphere.  

Biomass-based approaches offering long-term storage potential include Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), biochar, and wood burial. Each of these methods can store CO₂ on the geological timescales required to qualify as permanent storage. An inherent limitation of these biomass-based approaches is defining the baseline against which emissions are quantified. The CO₂ stored through these methods was previously held in biomass rather than free in the atmosphere. In the case of wood burial and biochar, the removal could be interpreted as avoided emissions rather than removed emissions, since burning or natural decomposition of biomass waste is prevented. The value here predominantly lies in converting temporary carbon storage into permanent storage. 

Impactful Giving and Investments Beyond Purchasing Carbon Removals 

In addition to an emission for emission compensation that we achieve through purchasing carbon removal credits, we believe it’s also important to support impactful organizations that have a positive climate impact in less directly quantifiable ways. 

We also support carbon removal companies on the basis of their potential, not just delivered tonnage. We donate solar PV installations, fund reforestation, and back a range of projects doing meaningful work. Where exactly our donations and investments go each year is documented on our website. 

Helping Our Customers Achieve Their Sustainability Goals 

We support clients across the energy transition: From project delivery and carbon accounting to residual emissions strategy. We also educate on carbon removal technologies, the offset-versus-removal distinction, and the current state of the sector in Canada and globally. 

References 

1. Government of Canada. Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) – facility greenhouse gas (GHG) data. https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/a8ba14b7-7f23-462a-bdbb-83b0ef629823. 

2. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol. https://ghgprotocol.org/. 

3. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol. A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard. https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/ghg-protocol-revised.pdf. 

4. Us Epa, O. Scopes 1 and 2 emissions inventorying and guidance. US EPA https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/scopes-1-and-2-emissions-inventorying-and-guidance (2015). 

5. GHG Protocol and Carbon Trust. Technical Guidance for Calculating Scope 3 Emissions. https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/Scope3_Calculation_Guidance_0.pdf (2013). 

6. UNFCCC Secretariat. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculator | 2021 Emission Factors. https://unfccc.int/documents/271269 (2021). 

7. Mcmahon, M. et al. GHG Protocol Initiative Team Project Management Team (PMT). https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/ghg_project_accounting.pdf (2000). 

8. Science Based Targets Initiative. SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 2.0. https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/CNZS-V2-Second-Consultation-Draft.pdf?dm=1762285041 (2025). 

9. Masson-Delmotte, V. et al. Annex I: glossary. Global Warming of 1, 541–562 (2018). 

10. Song, L. An (even more) inconvenient truth: Why carbon credits for forest preservation may be worse than nothing. ProPublica https://features.propublica.org/brazil-carbon-offsets/inconvenient-truth-carbon-credits-dont-work-deforestation-redd-acre-cambodia/ (2019). 

11. Akshat Rathi, N. W. A. D. P. Junk Carbon Offsets Are What Make These Big Companies ‘Carbon Neutral.’ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-carbon-offsets-renewable-energy/ (2022). 

12. Romm, J., Lezak, S. & Alshamsi, A. Are carbon offsets fixable? Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 50, 649–680 (2025). 

13. Cullenward, D., Badgley, G. & Chay, F. Carbon offsets are incompatible with the Paris Agreement. One Earth 6, 1085–1088 (2023). 

14. Lezak, S., Zaman, S., Johnstone, I. & Haya, B. UNFCCC carbon trading could undermine global climate action. Nat. Clim. Chang. 16, 8–9 (2026). 

15. Trencher, G., Nick, S., Carlson, J. & Johnson, M. Demand for low-quality offsets by major companies undermines climate integrity of the voluntary carbon market. Nat. Commun. 15, 6863 (2024). 

16. Gill-Wiehl, A., Kammen, D. M. & Haya, B. K. Pervasive over-crediting from cookstove offset methodologies. Nat. Sustain. 7, 191–202 (2024). 

17. Badgley, G. et al. Systematic over-crediting in California’s forest carbon offsets program. Glob. Chang. Biol. 28, 1433–1445 (2022). 

18. West, T. A. P., Börner, J., Sills, E. O. & Kontoleon, A. Overstated carbon emission reductions from voluntary REDD+ projects in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 117, 24188–24194 (2020). 

19. Probst, B. S. et al. Systematic assessment of the achieved emission reductions of carbon crediting projects. Nat. Commun. 15, 9562 (2024). 

20. Barden, G. J., Griffith, D. E., Akyurek, O. & Smith, P. Airlines facing “greenwashing” litigation on three continents. Jones Day https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2023/08/airlines-facing-greenwashing-litigation-on-three-continents (2023). 

21. Ivanova, I. Delta faces lawsuit alleging its “carbon-neutral” claim is greenwashing. CBS News https://www.cbsnews.com/news/delta-lawsuit-cabon-neutral-greenwashing-carbon-offsets/ (2023). 

22. Dufrasne, G. Assessing and comparing carbon credit rating agencies. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/publications/assessing-and-comparing-carbon-credit-rating-agencies/ (2023). 

23. Derik Broekhoff, Michael Gillenwater, Tani Colbert-Sangree, Patrick Cage. Securing Climate Benefit: Acknowledgements A Guide to Using Carbon Credits. https://offsetguide.org/wp-content/uploads/Guides/Carbon_Credit (2025). 

24. Haya, B. Methods for Assessing Carbon Offset Quality. https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/page/Detailed-methods-for-assessing-carbon-offset-quality–Developed-for-University-of-California.pdf (2024). 

25. Our mistakes. https://www.givinggreen.earth/post/giving-greens-mistakes (2022). 

26. How to think beyond net zero: Strategy report. https://www.givinggreen.earth/research/how-to-think-beyond-net-zero-strategy-report (2023). 

27. University of California. Offset program development for the university of California. https://gspp.berkeley.edu/berkeley-carbon-trading-project/developing-ucs-offset-strategy (2024). 

28. Allen, M. R. et al. Geological Net Zero and the need for disaggregated accounting for carbon sinks. Nature 638, 343–350 (2025). 

29. Brunner, C., Hausfather, Z. & Knutti, R. Durability of carbon dioxide removal is critical for Paris climate goals. Commun. Earth Environ. 5, 645 (2024). 

30. Allen, M. R. et al. Net zero: Science, origins, and implications. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 47, 849–887 (2022). 

31. Axelsson, K. et al. Oxford principles for net zero aligned carbon offsetting (revised 2024). https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2024-02/Oxford-Principles-for-Net-Zero-Aligned-Carbon-Offsetting-revised-2024.pdf (2024). 

32. Shukla, P. R. et al. Climate change 2022 – mitigation of climate change: Working Group III contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926 (2023).