In November 2024, an investigation by Follow the Money exposed how two prominent Dutch environmental commodities traders (Bram Bastiaansen and Jaap Janssen) allegedly exploited loopholes in the global carbon credit system. The report detailed how their firms, including ACT Commodities, profited from opaque trades, dubious emissions credits, and what some insiders call “fictitious volumes.”
As you can imagine, these are scandalous revelations with far-reaching detrimental effects to carbon trading which is fast becoming a cornerstone of climate mitigation strategies. The Amsterdam carvon market, long considered a hub for environmental commodities, faces a serious credibility crisis. But the good news is that technology, particularly blockchain and AI-powered verification systems, can help solve this problem. Let’s discuss how.
The core issue raised by the investigation into Bastiaansen and Janssen’s firms is a lack of transparency. Many of the credits traded weren’t backed by easily verifiable projects. Some were also duplicated or resold after “retirement,” making it impossible to confirm their climate value. This is exactly the type of problem blockchain registries were designed to fix.
Blockchain offers a tamper-proof, publicly auditable ledger of carbon credit issuance, transfer, and retirement. This has already been exemplified by platforms like Toucan Protocol, Klima DAO, and Moss Earth. The reason why this works so well is because once a credit is tokenised and tracked on-chain, it cannot be reused, misreported, or hidden in murky over-the-counter deals.
The key benefit here is immutability. Every transaction is timestamped and verifiable by third parties, eliminating the kind of volume manipulation Bastiaansen and Janssen were accused of enabling.
Even blockchain needs credible inputs. And that’s where AI-powered verification systems come in.
Startups like Carbonfuture and Pachama use machine learning, satellite imagery, and IoT sensors to assess whether a reforestation or renewable energy project is real, ongoing, and delivering emissions reductions. These tools detect double-counting, monitor biomass growth, and flag inconsistencies.
Imagine smart contracts that automatically retire carbon credits only after a satellite confirms the trees are still standing. Or automated systems that alert regulators when the same project is credited twice across registries.
This level of integrity is not optional in a market predicted to hit $100 billion by 2030.
Another key element of market modernisation is real-time trade analytics. Just as Wall Street uses AI to monitor financial trades for signs of manipulation or insider activity, environmental markets can now use anomaly detection algorithms to track suspicious carbon trades. Spikes in volume, abrupt pricing fluctuations, and repeated counterparties can all trigger automatic scrutiny.
The CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission) has already begun pushing for such oversight in U.S.-regulated carbon derivatives markets. Europe may not be far behind.
So why aren’t Bastiaansen and Janssen’s firms integrating such tools? The answer may lie in their profit model, which benefits from latency, opaqueness, and limited oversight.
Smart contracts (which are basically automated agreements executed on blockchain) offer a future where trust is embedded in code. For example:
Firms like VitaDAO and Flowcarbon are experimenting with these smart logic layers, especially in voluntary markets. The effect? Less room for creative accounting and more automated climate accountability.
It’s difficult to imagine fraudulent traders thriving in this environment. The very decentralised infrastructure that ensures integrity would also undermine the freedom to operate in the shadows.
The use of blockchain-powered registries and AI verification systems offer a path to restore faith in carbon markets. But adoption has been slow, perhaps deliberately so, by firms that grew profitable in the gaps between regulation and reality.
The Bastiaansen-Janssen model characterised by high-frequency, high-volume trading with questionable oversight, thrives on the opacity that blockchain technology threatens to eliminate.
If Amsterdam wants to protect its role as a leader in climate finance, the question is no longer whether tech can solve trade transparency concerns. The real question is: Will the market let it?
