All ETFs rebased to $100 on the start date. This isolates performance differences across categories:
Green bonds: lower volatility, rate-sensitive
Clean energy: high volatility (equity beta)
ESG equity: usually tracks broad equity
Each line is the average performance of ETFs in that category (rebased). Use it to answer: am I buying bond risk or equity risk?
Bonds diverge mainly with interest-rate cycles
Equities diverge mainly with growth / risk-on cycles
Volume is a liquidity proxy. Higher volume usually means: tighter spreads and lower trading friction. Low-volume ETFs can have wider spreads even if the daily price looks stable.
Ranked by total return since the start date. Compare within category for a fair read (bonds vs equities are different risk classes).
This shows whether volatility was compensated.
Top-left: higher return per unit of volatility
Bottom-right: high volatility, weak payoff
Use it to avoid "high-beta regret."
Sort by any column. Price and volume updated daily.
| Ticker | ETF Name | Category | Price | 1D % | Total Return | Volatility | Avg Volume |
|---|
Green Bond ETFs (BGRN, GRNB)
Bonds whose proceeds are earmarked for environmental projects. Usually lower volatility than equities, but sensitive to interest rates.
Clean Energy ETFs (ICLN, PBW, QCLN)
Equities in renewables, grid, EV supply chain, and related themes. High volatility; performance is cycle-dependent.
ESG Equity ETFs (ESGV, SUSL, ESGD, DSI, SHE, FLGR)
Broad equity exposure with ESG screens/tilts. Often tracks standard indices closely, with exclusions and modest factor differences.
Water ETFs (PHO, PIO)
Equities tied to water infrastructure, purification, and efficiency. Thematic; typically less volatile than clean energy but more concentrated than broad ESG.
Verified carbon credits are not identical products. Prices vary by project type, standard, methodology, vintage, location risk, and credit integrity. Use this database to compare — then verify the project documents before buying. (illustrative data — verify via Verra/Gold Standard registries)
Carbon offsets are not a commodity. Price ≠ quality.
Prices vary by standard (Verra / Gold Standard), vintage year, methodology, co-benefits, permanence risk, and credit integrity. A $5 credit and a $25 credit may both be "verified" — but they are not the same product. Always check the project methodology, verification reports, and registry status before purchasing.
Quick quality checklist (before you buy)
- Registry link: can you find the credit on Verra/GS/CAR/ACR registry?
- Methodology: is it current and widely accepted?
- Vintage: ideally recent, with recent verification reports
- Nature projects: buffer pool / reversal insurance present?
- Additionality: credible financial/market barrier story?
- Buyer fit: do you need removals vs reductions?
Prices differ because risk and verification difficulty differ.
Methane / waste credits often price higher because monitoring can be more direct and credits are issued over shorter periods.
Forestry / nature credits can price lower but carry reversal and governance risks.
Renewables vary widely depending on grid context and additionality debates.
Compare ranges, not averages — and check the project's methodology and buffer/insurance rules.
Standards affect both eligibility rules and buyer perception, which can influence price.
Gold Standard is often priced at a premium (strong reputation in community and development co-benefits).
Verra VCS is the largest and most widely used, with broad project coverage.
ACR and CAR are strong in North American compliance-style methodologies.
Rule: don't treat the standard name as a quality score — check the methodology and verification history.
Location changes the profile:
Co-benefits (jobs, energy access, biodiversity) vary by project and are not guaranteed.
Risk varies by governance, land tenure clarity, and enforcement capacity.
Price can reflect monitoring costs and perceived delivery risk.
If co-benefits matter, look for projects with third-party impact reporting (not just a brochure).
Vintage is the year reductions were issued/attributed. Many buyers prefer recent vintages, but older credits aren't automatically low-quality. What matters is whether the project is using current methodologies, has recent verification, and has not faced integrity controversies.
This is a rough estimator to translate price ranges into an annual cost. Actual footprints vary massively by energy use, diet, and flights. For a real estimate, use a footprint calculator and treat offsets as one tool — not a substitute for reductions.
Your CO2 estimate
Estimated annual cost by project type
Note: Price and availability are indicative. Always verify: methodology, issuance/retirement registry, buffer pool rules (for nature), and the project's monitoring reports.
| Project | Type | Standard | Location | Vintage | Price/Ton | Credits Available |
|---|
How do offsets work?
You fund a project that reduces or removes greenhouse gases. Each credit equals 1 ton of CO2 equivalent reduced. Projects are verified under recognized standards, but verification quality and methodology strength vary. You "retire" credits to claim the reduction — once retired, they can't be sold again.
What is additionality?
The most important concept. An offset has additionality if the project wouldn't have happened without carbon credit revenue. A forest that was already protected doesn't generate real offsets. Better methodologies test additionality more credibly — but additionality is hard to prove perfectly.
Why does vintage matter?
Vintage = the year emissions were actually reduced. Many corporate buyers prefer vintages within the last 3 years. Older credits may be cheaper but could indicate projects that struggled to sell, or use outdated methodologies.
Permanence risk
Forestry credits face reversal risk: a forest fire or illegal logging can release stored carbon. Good projects include buffer pools and insurance. Methane/waste credits have lower reversal risk than forestry, but can still face measurement and baseline risks.
ESG stands for Environmental, Social, and Governance. ESG funds invest in companies that meet certain standards related to environmental impact, labor practices, and corporate governance.
A carbon offset represents one metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO₂) reduced or removed from the atmosphere. Companies or individuals buy offsets to compensate for emissions they cannot eliminate.
Registries such as Verra (VCS), Gold Standard, ACR, and CAR track carbon credits from creation to retirement. Each credit has a unique serial number so it cannot be sold twice.
When a credit is retired, it is permanently removed from circulation. This is how an organization officially claims the associated emissions reduction.
Most broad ESG ETFs apply exclusion screens to large market indexes. After removing companies that fail certain ESG criteria, the remaining portfolio often still resembles the underlying market index.
No. ESG funds follow the same economic forces as any other equity portfolio. Their performance depends primarily on the industries and companies they hold.
These ETFs focus on a specific environmental theme, such as clean energy, water infrastructure, or climate technology. They are usually more concentrated and volatile than broad ESG funds.
Prices vary depending on project type (forestry, methane capture, clean cooking, etc.), certification standard, vintage year, project location, and perceived credit integrity. Two credits can both represent "1 ton of CO₂" yet trade at very different prices.
Additionality means the emissions reduction would not have happened without carbon credit financing. It is one of the most important — and debated — concepts in carbon markets.
Reductions prevent emissions from occurring (for example replacing coal power with wind energy). Removals physically remove CO₂ from the atmosphere (for example reforestation or direct air capture). Removals are generally rarer and often more expensive.
Vintage refers to the year the emissions reduction occurred. Many buyers prefer recent vintages because they reflect current methodologies and monitoring standards.
Most climate frameworks treat offsets as a supplement, not a replacement, for emissions reduction. Organizations typically prioritize cutting emissions first and use offsets for the remaining footprint.