Claim integrity gate
We will not confirm a claim. We will show you what published sources say should sit behind one, and which of those things you have told us you hold.
What this does
This checks whether you hold the evidence that published sources say should sit behind a claim of this kind. It does not assess whether your claim is lawful, accurate, or misleading. That is a legal question decided on the facts, and it is not one this tool can answer.
1. Define claim
The claim
Pick the kind of claim, then paste the wording you intend to publish.
Carbon positive
The phrase has no settled definition. It is used to mean removing more than you emit, going beyond neutrality with additional purchased units, or delivering an unquantified benefit. These are different claims with different evidence needs. This tool will not confirm the claim in any of its readings, only show you whether the components can be separated.
What “carbon positive” actually means
We will not confirm this claim, in any of its readings. Here is why the phrase needs unpacking before it is used.
- The term has no settled definition. Different organisations use it to mean different things, and the differences matter.
- One reading is that more carbon is removed from the atmosphere than the organisation emits, inside a stated boundary. That is a measurable claim, and it needs both figures published.
- A second reading is that the organisation has gone past a carbon-neutral position by buying additional units. That is a purchasing decision rather than an emissions outcome, and it should be described as one.
- A third reading is a general claim of net benefit with no quantity attached. That reading cannot be checked and is the one most likely to mislead.
- Removals are not the same as avoided emissions, and neither is the same as reducing what you emit in the first place. The order matters: avoid, reduce, substitute, then remove, and only then compensate for what is left.
Section 1 of 3