Eric Matzner

#Carbonremoval startups in direct air capture (#DAC), bioenergy carbon capture and storage (#BECCS), enhanced weathering, #afforestation/ #reforestation and soil carbon sequestration may find this data useful for your strategic planning. #sustainability #energytransition #IRA #CO2 #carbon #decarbonization #decarbonisation #carboncapture #ccs #ccus #directaircapture #carbonsequestration #carbonstorage

17

1 Comment

📢 Last week The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) confirmed that both Verra's Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) and the Architecture for REDD+ Transactions (ART) program met the rigorous Core Carbon Principles (#CCPs). Proud to be one of the members of the group that helped create these principles, can’t wait to see more and more standards to be aligned with them. This is a significant achievement for the voluntary carbon market, marking a major step towards ensuring the highest levels of integrity and transparency in carbon credits. So who will be next? Thoughts? #CarbonMarket #VCM #CarbonCredits https://lnkd.in/ecYWpexc

23

2 Comments

Demand for nature-based carbon removal could more than triple by 2030. That's according to Carbon Direct's recent report on the state of the voluntary carbon market. Current demand: est. ~12 million nature-based removal credits retired in 2024 So far this year, buyers have retired 7 million nature-based carbon removal credits. The report estimates that by the end of 2024, that number will reach 12 million (retirements tend to go up in Q4). 2030 demand projection: >40 million nature-based removal credits/year Based on a review of public corporate commitments to purchase carbon removal, the report estimates that demand for nature-based removals will reach around 40 million tons per year by 2030. That would be a very big market jump in 5 years, and will depend on companies not backing down from their public commitments, and current buyers continuing to buy. 2030 supply projection: ~20 million nature-based removals/year Based on publicly available investment fund data, the report estimates there will only be about 20 million tons of high-quality nature-based carbon removals issued each year by 2030. If this analysis proves correct then: 1. If you are developing high-quality nature-based carbon removal projects now: hang on! The market may be about to get better. 2. If you have a public commitment to purchase carbon removal by 2030, but haven't yet started: it may be worth investing in early-stage projects now to secure supply. 3. If you are an investment firm: there's a need for early-stage capital to get these projects off the ground to meet coming demand. Image and data from Carbon Direct 2024 State of the VCM report. 🔗 to report in comment ---- Note: 7M year-to-date retirements of nature-based removals is based on data from the 5 largest carbon registries.

170

12 Comments

The first methane and carbon dioxide (CO2) detections by the Tanager-1 satellite have been released by the Carbon Mapper Coalition. This is the culmination of years of effort from a public-private partnership, funded by philanthropy, to make emissions data available globally and actionable on a local scale. These observations are a preview of what’s to come as Carbon Mapper will leverage Tanager-1 to scale-up emissions observations at unprecedented sensitivity across large areas. Data at this level of granularity can empower enhanced transparency and guide mitigation actions that benefit our climate...https://lnkd.in/gUAGN4DJ

38

Congrats to the team at Verra! It can't be easy to be nimble and responsive when you're steering the world's largest carbon crediting program. By achieving eligibility with The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM)'s Core Carbon Principles, all of Verra's projects - including Growing Forests' carbon project which is now in review by Verra - may be eligible for endorsement by the world's leading credibility body on carbon offset credits. This is a critical step in improving the quality of carbon offset credits so that the public can have more confidence that the climate benefit that they're paying for is actually being achieved on the ground. And with that confidence in the quality of offsets society can finally get on with financing the vast array of projects that can remove carbon from the atmosphere. These nature-based projects, like Growing Forests', have the opportunity to save existing old forests, restore previously degraded forests and steward our forests through a climate that is changing so rapidly that they have no natural ability to adjust. The opportunity to turn the ship of nature degradation around is now within sight, and offsets are the right mechanism to pay for it.

3

🌍 Excited to announce a landmark partnership! NextGen CDR, Exomad Green, and carbonfuture are joining forces to scale biochar carbon removal—powered by Carbonfuture MRV+. This collaboration sets a new benchmark for buyers clubs, embedding independent digital Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (dMRV) into the carbon credit purchasing process to deliver the transparency and trust buyers need to confidently meet their net-zero commitments. 📢 Why this matters: ► Raising the bar for buyers clubs: By integrating independent digital dMRV as a core requirement for every credit purchased, this partnership ensures quality, transparency, and buyer confidence. ► Scaling high-integrity solutions: Carbonfuture MRV+ provides rigorous due diligence, meticulous digital tracking, and seamless third-party verification and certification, supporting the delivery of high-quality carbon removal credits to NextGen buyers while accelerating credit issuance for CDR suppliers like Exomad Green. ► Japan leading the charge: With visionary companies like Mitsubishi Corporation and Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd., Japan continues to drive high-quality carbon removal innovation on the global stage. At Carbonfuture, we’re committed to building trust in the voluntary carbon market by delivering the most comprehensive digital MRV for durable carbon removal projects. This partnership underscores the critical role of independent MRV in delivering the high-integrity solutions we need to achieve our net-zero targets. 👉 Read more in the press release: https://lnkd.in/eNAANVWh 🙏 Thank you to Ryosuke Kontani Masao Koyama Yushi Horita Akifumi (Chris) Takigawa Patrick Buergi Matthew Le Flocq K Kartick Megan Kemp Diego Justiniano Francesco Guglielmi Marcelo Pereira Holters for making this partnership possible. #CarbonRemoval #CDR #NetZero #Sustainability #Biochar #dMRV

99

6 Comments

Most carbon credits are a scam on cryptocurrency scale, study shows: We synthesized studies relying on experimental or rigorous observational methods, covering 14 studies on 2346 carbon mitigation projects and 51 studies investigating similar field interventions implemented without issuing carbon credits. The analysis covers one-fifth of the credit volume issued to date, almost 1 billion tons of CO2e. We estimate that less than 16% of the carbon credits issued to the investigated projects constitute real emission reductions, with 11% for cookstoves, 16% for SF6 destruction, 25% for avoided deforestation, 68% for HFC-23 abatement, and no statistically significant emission reductions from wind power and improved forest management projects. Carbon crediting mechanisms need to be reformed fundamentally to meaningfully contribute to climate change mitigation.

1

🌎 California's second carbon market auction of the year has raised significant revenue at a critical time for climate funds! 💰🌿 The latest Western Climate Initiative auction results show continued demand for allowances and confidence in the program's stability. This auction is expected to generate approximately $1.1 Billion for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), which funds initiatives aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and building climate resilience. 🌱🚉 📈 Key Highlights: - All 51,589,488 current vintage allowances were purchased, marking the 15th consecutive sold-out auction. - The current auction settled at $37.02, significantly above the $24.04 price floor. - All 7,211,000 future vintage allowances offered were sold, settling at $38.35. 💼🌟 Over the past decade, investments from the GGRF have reduced California's emissions by 109.2 million metric tons—equivalent to removing 80% of the state's gas cars from the road! These funds have supported zero-emissions transport, affordable housing, and other critical projects. 🔥 As California faces another summer with heightened wildfire risks and evident climate change impacts, the importance of the GGRF is clearer than ever. Despite the slight dip in settlement prices, strong demand continues, reflecting the market's stability. 🌿🌍 Let's continue to invest in a sustainable future and support initiatives that make a real difference! https://lnkd.in/grvTCJ-y #ClimateAction #Sustainability #GreenFuture #CaliforniaClimate #CarbonMarket

6

📢 New Podcast Episode#30! “Biochar: Nature's Climate Solution in Action” featuring John Webster What if one material could capture carbon, improve soil health, and turn waste into something valuable? It exists, and it’s called biochar. In this episode, I had the pleasure of speaking with John Webster, a former tech executive turned biochar advocate. John shared how biochar is capturing the attention of farmers, builders, and climate innovators worldwide. It’s used in agriculture, water filtration, and construction materials like concrete and drywall. Here’s why this episode matters: - Biochar captures and stores carbon for centuries — not just years. - It’s a tool for regenerative farming, soil health, and clean water. - It’s playing a growing role in the carbon credit market. - As John puts it, "This isn’t future tech. It’s here. It’s now." This episode is for you if you care about climate solutions, sustainable agriculture, or innovative ways to fight carbon emissions. 🎧 Listen to the full episode here: -Spotify: https://lnkd.in/dzq7bTzu -Apple Podcasts: : https://lnkd.in/dJnz9jei -YouTube: https://lnkd.in/dc2_hgZp - SoundCloud: https://lnkd.in/dffNfRHj - Show Website: https://lnkd.in/dMMasGTJ Resources Mentioned in This Episode: ➢ US Biochar Initiative | LinkedIn: https://lnkd.in/dmPNtiFk ➢ Biochar On-Site Network | LinkedIn: https://lnkd.in/daYDEywe ➢ International Biochar Initiative: https://lnkd.in/d-83NSX8 This episode is part of the new Regenerative Agriculture & Climate Solutions series on the Pre-Zero Sports Talk Podcast. This conversation is a must-listen if you’ve been looking for actionable climate solutions that are here now—not 10 years from now. Let me know what you think in the comments. #Biochar #ClimateSolutions #Sustainability #SoilHealth #CarbonCapture #CarbonSequestration #RegenerativeAgriculture #GreenTech

11

2 Comments

I agree with a lot of what’s said here. Additionality (issuance) is a grey area, and there are high amounts of uncertainty in the precise numbers. However, that doesn’t mean that we can’t make definitive statements about it, or be very accurate if we balance our models towards conservative estimates. For example, let’s say we’re protecting 100,000 hectares of forest right on the edge of the Amazon. How much deforestation is likely to occur in that area in the next 30 years? At least 1000 hectares? Yes. We can all agree there, and we can say that with a very high degree of confidence. Is it 50,000 hectares? Or 40,000 hectares? This is where we get into trouble. Different models/baselines/modes of thinking will get us different answers. The most reasonable approach would be to credit to conservative numbers, though carbon methodologies today universally credit to the mean of a single model (or allow developers to pick the highest value of several models). For this reason, as the OP implies, anyone saying “80% of REDD is non-additional” is probably not technically correct. However, when a majority of independent academics or non-profits come to conclusions of historical REDD+ over-issuance that range from between 75-94%, then we can start to form definitive conclusions: in this case, that there has historically been over-issuance and that it likely exceeds 50% by a hefty margin. As more time passes, some of these programs can be assessed at a more holistic level. Has forest management changed across an IFM program after 10 years of implementation? Has deforestation decreased? Here’s where I do disagree though: Carbon credits do need to be pretty close to water-tight. We do need to optimize for the credits that we’re certain about for the following reasons: 1 - We have to remember that carbon credits are meant to deal with REAL pollution. This could have been dealt with in other ways if not for these credits. Every bad credit is a tonne of CO2 that likely would have been handled in a different way. There is a high cost to commission errors. 2 - The OP talks about high transaction costs: legitimate carbon credits should cost a lot. Offsetting your emissions should be a bit painful, enough to incentivize reducing emissions at their source. What's more, non-additional credits drag down the price of all credits – which is the current situation. True forest conservation and restoration is also a lot more expensive. Ask anyone if they'd prefer 5 carbon credits or 250 board feet of timber. 3 - Carbon offsetting is not going to gain larger adoption unless scandals are few and far between. Not being certain about large portions of the market’s credits will never lead to mass adoption. If Thales West and Jesús Aguirre-Gutiérrez had found over-issuance to be 10%, then the market wouldn’t be in this situation. 4 - No buyer deserves to be stuck on the raw-end of a "not quite water-tight" carbon credit.

20

2 Comments

I'm not planning to buy another Teflon frying pan - are you? The climate change emissions from HFC-23 resulted in the equivalent of more than a quarter of a billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. Apparently, this climate super-pollutant is a by-product of producing HCFC-22 - an ozone depleting substance which is used mostly to produce fluoropolymers such as PTFE or Teflon! OK, so there's a lot of complicated chemical names. But the bottom line is that these chemicals are incredibly destructive. It's also possible to stop using them. So, why don't we? Have a look at a new report produced by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA). Here's the link to Unchecked — The fluorochemical industry’s scandalous HFC-23 by-product emissions amid the climate crisis, estimates that cumulative emissions of HFC-23 since 2016 are almost 106,000 tonnes, equivalent to 1.56 billion tonnes of CO2 — or the same climate damage as driving more than 371 million petrol-powered cars for a year. https://lnkd.in/eFdr-Shy

8

1 Comment

File under CDP, DID ANY COMPANY SEE ITS DIRECT SCOPE 1 THU 3 GHG EMISSIONS DECLINE LAST YEAR? Sans renewable energy or sequestration credits? “How hot are we talking? Well, high temperatures across (western Nevada and northeastern California) won't get below 100 degrees (37.8 C) until next weekend,” the service posted online. “And unfortunately, there won't be much relief overnight either." https://lnkd.in/gT-fQqcH “Torrid.” Say that outloud to the person next to you. When was the last time you used that word to describe something? It’s almost 2025. Many of SBTI ghg reduction targets were set at or before 2021. We have 5 more years before the 2030 reduction targets “have” to be met. What have these “corporate leaders” collectively achieved so far? Let alone the corporations and businesses who haven’t set a SBTi 🎯…. CDP, SASB Standards , Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB)? Or perhaps we ask the sage interpretors of the above disclosures (many of which have no financial conflicts of interst🥸) such as Morningstar Sustainalytics or Bloomberg or FTSE Russell, An LSEG Business or ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services or MSCI Inc. or Refinitiv or RepRisk or S&P Global or Sustainalytics or Thomson Reuters or Dow Jones Risk & Compliance or Corporate Knights or KLD LLP or Moody's Ratings or EcoVadis or my Aunt? Can you please tell us: 💥 For SBTI target setting companies, what is the % increase in net: a) revenues b) operating costs c) profits d) SCOPE 1 GHG emissions e) SCOPE 2 GHG emissions f) SCOPE 3 GHG emissions For the following time periods: a) ‘baseline’ target year to the end of 2023 b) change year over year Next, could you do the same for companies who DID not set a SBTI target? If data is available. Hmmm…sounds like I need to write a grant proposal.

4

I am deeply proud to share that #landfill gas (methane avoidance) methodologies have been awarded with Core Carbon Principles (#CCP) label by The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM). These would be the first high-integrity CCP-labelled #carboncredits in history! Over the past 20 years, I have witnessed very closely the evolution of methodology #ACM0001 from its inception in the very first #CDM projects to its current version 19, developing over thirty #methane #avoidance projects. Throughout this journey, we've tackled numerous challenges such as measuring flare efficiency, implementing continuous monitoring or refining oxidation factors. Thanks to all historic team who made me understand better the importance of this methodology over the years... Ian Gadsby, Rafal Lewicki, Ina Ballik, Nina Zetsche, David Antonioli, Bernardo Lazo, Sandra Enriquez Polo, Henk Harmsen, Mauro Fadda, Reynaldo A. Hernandez, Alfredo Gil Acevedo, Raúl G. Mitre, PhD, Ricardo Lopes, Ivan Hernandez Villegas, DANIEL GALVAN PEREZ amongst others. While there is always room for improvement, these methodologies have significantly advanced #wastemanagement, especially in the #GlobalSouth and showcase what high-integrity #carbonmarkets can achieve by providing #climatefinance to turn #waste emissions into valuable #energy while reducing #GHG. Thank you to the #ICVCM to pave the way to #NetZero with impactful #climateaction based on #integrity with this major milestone for the #VCM and #Article6

52

17 Comments

Out latest #infographic on how EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) is pushing heavy industries to refine their emissions accounting ⏬ https://lnkd.in/exjgg63s #OCTT #ironandsteel #CBAM #carbonmarkets #OOTT #emissions #climatechange #EUETS #emissionstrading #ammonia #fertilizers #carbon #compliance #energytransition #energy #prices

26

2 Comments

I want to say something about this very important story by Dharna Noor, covering the report on fossil-fuel disinformation released by the Senate Budget Committee today. Noor reports that one internal BP document recommends that "the company fund white papers from Princeton University and Imperial College which spotlight the 'role of gas as a friend to renewables'." Noor continues: "it’s one of several emails showing that oil companies 'establish funded partnerships with academic institutions to enhance their credibility'." It is so important to understand the underlying political dynamic of this propaganda strategy. This kind of collaboration—this normalization of fossil-fuel disinformation through supposedly objective institutions—is a great barrier to phasing out fossil fuels. Fossil-fuel ideologies get laundered as ivy-league research (selected and elevated by the ff companies themselves), then get filtered through lobbyists to Congress and through the news media to voters, with the result that they become the "common-sense position" about the climate crisis. As George Lakoff has long since observed, correctly: "political ground is gained ... when you successfully impose your framing as the 'common- sense' position." If you want to understand why there is not more political pressure to phase out fossil fuels, even though vast majorities of voters say they want Congress and the President to solve the #ClimateCrisis, you should pay attention to the normalization of propaganda. https://lnkd.in/eKeRFafd

53

4 Comments

This post by Chien-Chih Chen is a perfect example of what some have called "carbon tunnel vision" or "carbon myopia." Because carbon markets focus only on... well... carbon, any accounting for non-carbon factors, **INCLUDING** human rights, is: 1. Incidental; and, 2. Increasingly disincentivized as the price of carbon credits increases. In particular, Indigenous peoples around the world are ALREADY at a significant power disadvantage regarding protection of their lands and indeed their very lives. The rise of nature-based carbon offsetting will only worsen this. #carbonmarkets #justice #sustainability Lavinia Muth

4

This is a brilliant step by Verra 👏. We at Carbon Growth Partners highly recommend that parties accept the invitation to participate in the consultation process. 💡📝 Providing an optional pathway to transition from 'legacy' carbon accounting methodologies to their CCP descendants will: ✅️ Give project proponents and host communities choice in their approach. ✅️ Help to raise the real and perceived quality bar for carbon projects. ✅️ Maintain investment confidence by mitigating stranded asset risk. It is also important to note that projects that choose not to transition are not necessarily 'bad' or 'worse' than those that do. But they are different. That's especially true for forest conservation under the REDD+ program's VM0048, which is just a completely different way of accounting for forest carbon conservation. Well done to Justin Wheler and Andrew Howard for your process design and Judith Simon, Robin Rix, Toby Janson-Smith, Naomi Swickard and others on the Verra team for your leadership. Link to the process - including the relevant feedback forms - in the Verra link. Have your say! 🗣👇

142

10 Comments

Let me add four critical observations to your invaluable #CRCF reflections: 1. Lack of use case definition for #CRCF: this was a political/ design choice at the start of the legislative process for the CRCF. Due to this flawed approach the CRCF cannot be ‘fit-for-purpose’ ( as the purpose is not defined beyond the inherently vague and ambiguous ‘ let’s support voluntary action for land-use and other removals’). This aspect is really painful in the context of developing a holistic, beyond GHGs MRV system that could support for exsmole CAP ( common agricultural policy) & ETS ( mandatory, sectoral emissions trading) 2. By setting the bar very low on minimum sustainability requirements , including co-benefits the CRCF will not support, but undermine high integrity, sustainability supporting activities. This is a giant negative risk: by obtaining a ‘ high quality EU stamp’ for something that almost all existing standards meet is not a step forward, but a step backwards. 3, Assuming zero baselines & assuming financial additionality in a large number of cases is irresponsible simplification. This must be radically changed. 4. The belief that applying existing State Aid rules, in the same way as applied to Microsoft / Ørsted / Stockholm Exergi multimillion EUR BECCS deals , to agricultural and forestry interventions is delusional. I am glad that CDR working group members are diving deep into the materials available since 11 October and will submit their suggestions by 15 November . Thanks for the comment under my CRCF sonnet: https://lnkd.in/erb-86mW #CDR #removals #carbonfarming #agriculture #sustainability #biodiversity #EUGreenDeal #CAP #EUETS #MRV

2