A recent post by Ajay Darade positions biochar as a frontrunner in early carbon markets. The argument is clear. Permanence. scalability. strong MRV. co-benefits. high demand.

There is truth in this. But it needs sharper framing.

First, permanence is real, but not automatic. Biochar can store carbon for long periods. That depends on feedstock, process conditions, and how the material is used. Low-temperature chars or poorly controlled systems reduce stability. Soil conditions also matter. Not all “biochar” delivers the same carbon outcome.

Second, scalability is often overstated. Agricultural residues exist at scale. That does not mean they are available at scale. Residues have competing uses. Animal bedding, energy, soil cover. Collection costs rise fast with distance. Seasonality adds pressure. Projects that assume stable, low-cost feedstock tend to fail in operations, not in theory.

Third, MRV is improving, but it is not simple. Compared to forestry, biochar has advantages. You can measure carbon content and track batches. But distributed systems introduce risk. Smallholder aggregation, variable moisture, inconsistent kilns, and limited lab access all affect data quality. Digital MRV helps. It does not replace physical controls.

Fourth, the “dual impact” claim needs discipline. Soil benefits exist. They are not uniform. Yield response depends on soil type, climate, crop, and application rate. In some systems, the agronomic case is strong. In others, it is marginal. Projects that rely only on carbon revenue often ignore this and struggle with farmer adoption.

Fifth, demand exceeds supply today. That is true for high-quality removals. But markets are still thin. Prices are not stable. Buyer requirements are evolving. Additionality, baseline setting, and co-benefit claims are under scrutiny. Early momentum does not equal long-term market structure.

There is also a framing issue.

Biochar is not “winning” because it is easy. It is gaining traction because it sits between engineered and nature-based approaches. It offers measurable carbon, some permanence, and operational flexibility. That combination fits what early buyers are willing to pay for.

But the projects that work share a different pattern:

They treat biochar as a system, not a product.

• Feedstock strategy is diversified, not assumed
• Technology is matched to material, not selected upfront
• Carbon is one revenue stream, not the only one
• Soil application is designed with farmers, not added later
• MRV is built into operations, not layered on top

A more accurate conclusion: Biochar is not dominating because it is inherently superior; it is advancing because it can be structured to meet current market expectations.

Whether it sustains that position will depend on execution. Not narrative.