Maggie Monast

The SBTi just published an evidence review that pretty comprehensively trashes carbon credits: "[V]arious types of carbon credits are ineffective in delivering their intended mitigation outcomes." "There could be clear risks to corporate use of carbon credits for the purposes of offsetting. This includes potential unintended effects of hindering the net-zero transformation and/or reducing climate finance." "All Tier A evidence challenge the legitimacy of offsetting claims, arguing that treating carbon credits as fungible with other sources, sinks, or reductions of emissions is inadvisable, illogical, or damaging to global mitigation goals." https://lnkd.in/eJfTuPyD

358

57 Comments

New important benchmark for net gain! The document titled "Biodiversity Finance Metrics for Impact Reporting," published in October 2024, is a supplemental guide developed by IFC to enhance transparency and accountability in biodiversity-related financial activities. It complements IFC’s Biodiversity Finance Reference Guide by providing detailed metrics for impact reporting across various biodiversity finance projects. The document offers guidance for investors, companies, and financial institutions on how to track and report the impact of investments aimed at biodiversity conservation and ecosystem restoration. These metrics help assess the effectiveness of projects against global frameworks, such as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, and align them with the Green Bond and Green Loan Principles.   How is this different from what we already do with IFC's PS6? PS6 is more focused on compliance and risk prevention, while the biodiversity finance metrics focus on maximizing positive outcomes and reporting tangible biodiversity gains. https://lnkd.in/gzW893kj

11

1 Comment

So what is a fair match of corporate to public funding of sustainability initiatives? Let’s look at the $3 Billion USD USDA Partnerships for Climate Smart Commodities grants. "🌿 Transitioning to resilient agriculture calls for collective impact with government engagement....how leading companies can pull others together to meet climate targets?" -- from a recent post by a food think-tank. Let's take a look at the USDA Climate Smart Commodity Program funded projects? Below is the percent match provided by project awardees. These "matches" can be direct and/or indirect; USDA does not provide these data. Does this demonstrate shared, "collective" impact? Perhaps. It's up to you as a taxpayer to say. What I'm even more interested in is the ROI of my tax dollar. What is the Carbon reduction per tax dollar spent for each of these projects? Will we know? Could we estimate this now?

6

10 Comments

🌍 From COP16 in Cali to COP29 in Baku: A Pathway to Equitable Climate Action As COP16 in Cali concluded with historic steps toward inclusion—like a permanent body for Indigenous and local voices—our journey to COP29 in Baku is one of building trust and strengthening frameworks. ALLCOT stands ready to advocate for robust climate finance targets, high-integrity carbon markets, and ambitious NDCs that prioritize the Global South. COP29 is a chance to operationalize Article 6, reinforcing carbon markets and ensuring that finance flows equitably, benefiting vulnerable communities worldwide. Together, we aim to lay a strong foundation for COP30, pushing for a net-zero future that serves people and planet alike. https://lnkd.in/dH7RpFXW #COP29 #ClimateAction #ALLCOT #NetZero #Article6 #SustainableDevelopment Sergi Cuadrat ALLCOT IO Ousmane Fall SARR Nathalie F.

37

https://lnkd.in/eAW_4BmT There will no doubt be much talk this week at #climateweekNYC about the efforts to address integrity concerns in the NbS carbon credit market. Here is another doubtless rigorous piece of scientific research which speaks to the only partial (30%) success of pieces of the earth's surface that are classified as "Protected Areas" to prevent deforestation. The wicked problem of deforestation, and how to best address it, is at the heart of all the noise and hand-wringing around NbS projects (and in particular REDD+ projects) over the past two years. This paper reminds us of the limitations in the datasets that undermined the critical West et al paper that media outlets like the Guardian mistakenly took to represent settled scientific truth when they published stories last year about over-crediting and "ghost credits". The analysis presented here relies on the same datasets that were selected to train the AI used in the West et al paper, namely the Hansen global spatial data on the amount of tree cover (2013) and the World Database for Protected Areas, hosted by Protected Planet. Both datasets are generalised global attempts to present data in consistent ways, and both suffer from multiple site specific errors and habitat related applicability challenges, issues well understood by those who use these data in the sector. It doesn't mean they are not valuable repositories of data, but we are going to have to find a way to communicate to the market that this is not an issue that can be reduced to "right" and "wrong"! #scientificprocess #nbs #vcm

17

2 Comments

Programs that are based on practices as results rather than practices for results that are measured are not terribly reliable. If we are going to pay for results, then we need measurements to prove that they are there. That isn’t to say that better practices aren’t good — they can do many good things, e.g., increase organic matter above and below ground, reduce input use of water, pesticides, and fertilizer, reduce soil erosion and runoff, increase year-round water flow and quality, and increase productivity and net producer income. But depending on where and how they are applied, as well as in what combinations, the results will vary considerably. If results are the goal, then measure them. My guess would be that through regenerative agriculture and other better practices, farmers would more likely reduce their GHG emissions by cutting input use more than they would by increasing soil carbon over time. And the reduced input use is easy to measure, and it is permanent. If it didn’t happen, it didn’t happen. Nothing will change that.

38

6 Comments

The third working group of the IPCC focused on mitigation and climate change. There's a rapidly closing window to cut emissions in order to keep within 1.5C. First, as of time of issuing report, 80% of the carbon budget for 1.5 had already been used. Only 20% remained. Also, peaking of emissions needed to happen between 2020-2025. That's yet to happen. It is of course better to remain below 1.5 than overshoot and come back later. These are some of the insights from the report, the rest of which I summarized below. Have a look: #mitigation #climateaction #climatechange #wgiii #ar6 https://lnkd.in/dwnpkKnS

2

Some welcome news and progressive climate leadership from the Biden-Harris Administration. The Administration’s new Principles for Responsible Participation in the Voluntary Carbon Market state the obvious, but pave the way for demand that has been sat on the sidelines to now step in and step up. At emstream and emsurge have been working tirelessly on principles 6 & 7, contributing to efforts that improve market integrity and facilitating efficient market participation and succeeding in lowering transaction costs. Through our emsurge platform we are proud to have lowered transaction costs for many of our users. Through our collaborations with BeZero Carbon, Sylvera and Renoster we promote the importance of high quality credits. In addition to stimulating the demand side, it's great to see a government also supporting the tech innovations and cultural shifts in farming practices required to get to net zero. https://lnkd.in/dJnwwWfX #whitehouse #climate #vcm #volutarycarbonmarket #netzero #trading #markets #commodities #oilandgas #lng #carbonoffsets #carbonneutrallng #carbonneutral #sustainability #carbon Alexander Perrett Rodolfo Grave Lucy Camp Andrew Weiner Hugh Roper

41

1 Comment

What Max Scher from Salesforce said! If we’re interested in maximizing climate impact and outcomes we need clear incentives that support inside and outside value chain mitigation. Hoping we can increase attention and focus in particular on adaptation and resilience as explicit parts of climate action strategies in the future.

42

3 Comments

Timely and important words of support from the US Government (leaders from DOE, Treasury, USDA, and Biden Administration) today for the use of high-integrity voluntary carbon markets to advance climate action. The statement acknowledges current market challenges while highlighting market progress and laying out principles for carbon markets to meet their potential as a legitimate, scalable tool to address climate change. Excited to see alignment with the newly announced Symbiosis Coalition's work to identify and scale the next generation of high-quality nature-based carbon removal projects, including advancing science-based standards and enhancing certainty around demand to support long-term investment in these solutions. Kudos to The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM), VCMI, and many other organizations also advancing progress in carbon markets that weren't directly mentioned in the statement. From the joint policy statement: "As leaders of U.S. Federal departments and offices, we have issued this statement and associated principles on VCMs because we believe they can and should play a meaningful role in facilitating global greenhouse gas emissions (“emissions”) reductions and removals and helping to reach global net-zero emissions by 2050 and limit warming to 1.5 °C." Read the whole thing here:

81

2 Comments

Thanks to World Wildlife Fund for this nuanced and thoughtful take on the ongoing debate about the role of Environmental Attribute Commodities, including but not limited to carbon credits, in Scope 3 decarbonization strategies under emerging Science Based Targets initiative rules. I am encouraged to see emerging convergence on a middle ground that can help us move forward to mobilize high ambition quickly. I am doing a 2 part post because I couldn’t fit everything in one. So here’s part 1 of 2. Here's where we agree: ✅ companies should prioritize within supply chain reductions because "Mobilizing corporate investments in their own operations and within their own value chains is most impactful, because that is where companies have the greatest incentive to act and most influence to drive deep decarbonization and systemic market transformation across sectors and regions. Investments in in-value-chain emissions are also a proven and effective way to reduce risks, and channel substantial climate finance into value chains in the Global South and into broader nature action." ✅ That companies are facing challenges in decarbonizing their supply chains and "While progressing towards net zero emissions, some companies are facing challenges setting and implementing Scope 3 science-based emissions reductions targets, often due to having complex supply chains, and limited ability to influence suppliers." ✅ Calls for SBTi to: "consider an array of options that improve the feasibility and effectiveness of emission reductions, including modifying target setting methods, focusing on the most material and highest impact emissions categories, considering a wider range of metrics, refining sector pathways, improving overall operational excellence, and the targeted use of market mechanisms." ✅ "supports the targeted use of some market mechanisms, such as EACs and carbon credits within company value chains, as long as the SBTi includes appropriate safeguards to ensure impact and transparent claims and reporting." Here's where we disagree: ❌ "WWF does not support the use of offsets -carbon credits from outside company value chains used to counterbalance value chain emissions - to meet company climate targets (except for residual emissions)..." I’ll cover why I think it’s essential for The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) CCP labeled credits to count towards *A PORTION* of companies scope 3 targets in a second post.

55

4 Comments

In 2020, three American organisations published a report entitled, ‘Financing Nature: Closing the Global Biodiversity Financing Gap’, which they equated to be $700 to 900 billion a year. It has become one of the most widely cited reports on biodiversity conservation. There is no reason to believe that the biodiversity crisis will be averted if the world spends an additional $700 billion a year on biodiversity finance, argues Andre Standing, whom I've met and discussed fisheries with in Seychelles. This view simply equates money with success, ignoring that so much spent on conservation has ambiguous or even adverse outcomes, Standing says. The most worrying dimension to Financing Nature is that it presents a vision that global capital markets provide the vast majority of funding for conserving biodiversity, inevitably opening up new frontiers for asset management firms. The obsession with gap reports, "gap-mania", is not unique to biodiversity. Gap reports are now standard across so many aspects of society. They follow the same formula and consistently show that the gap is so big that public funding cannot possibly close it, so private finance must come to the rescue. Their recommendations always include strategies such as ‘blending’ public money with private investment, and taking up debt. The message from COP16 was therfore predictable: the funding gap is still massive, and much more needs to be done urgently. It has become a rallying cry for many governments and NGOs in the South, linking this to social justice and compensation for an ecological debt owed by the North. The Financing Nature report has had a profound impact on global discussion about biodiversity conservation. It is used for one of the four goals of the Kunming-Montreal CBD Framework Agreement. Yet, it does not deserve to have had this impact. Its findings are incoherent and based on surprisingly poor research, Standing concludes.

23

5 Comments

An emissions gap refers to the difference between collective emissions cuts in the NDCs and the emissions cuts needed for the least cost pathways to keep at 1.5/2C outlined in the IPCC sixth assessment report. Therefore, what is the difference between an emissions gap and an implementation gap? I wrote an in-depth summary of the last emissions gap report, covering 2023. Where are we as the world?See: #emissionsgap2023 #emissionsgap #implementationgap #climatechange #climateaction https://lnkd.in/dVVJYHnp

2

Elevate Your Clients' ESG Strategy with HCS Enhanced Carbon Credits Are you looking to provide your clients with innovative and effective carbon credits? HCS Enhanced 100 Year Plus credits are the answer. They combine the benefits of regenerative agriculture and engineered carbon removal, making them a robust addition to any ESG strategy. 🔹 Why Choose HCS Enhanced Credits? ▪ Third-party verified to ensure the highest standards of integrity. ▪ Precise CO2 sequestration measurement with advanced monitoring. ▪ Over 100 years of durable carbon storage. ▪ Cost-effective, scalable solution under $100 per credit. Enhance your clients' sustainability goals with HCS Hybrid Carbon Credits. Learn more and access our latest Carbon Book: https://lnkd.in/efH5_MYQ #Carbonemoval #CarbonCredits #ESG

2

Hypothesis: Ex-post dynamic baselines could solve the carbon market perverse incentive problem. What is the perverse incentive problem? Carbon market interventions (like any conservation interventions!) need to prove they are "additional," meaning that their interventions result in fewer Greenhouse Gasses (GHGs) in the atmosphere. To prove additionality, you need to compare your project (or program, or region) to a counterfactual. Most of the time, that counterfactual is just the observed historic flux of GHGs from your project to the atmosphere. In essence, the project is demonstrating improvement by comparing to itself in the past. This means that actors who are already doing a good job reducing GHG emissions and storing carbon on the landscape can't access credits, because they can't "outperform" their own good behavior. This is the "perverse incentive:" in order to access revenue, good actors need to start acting bad so they can get credit for acting good again. What are ex-post dynamic baselines? This is a new approach to defining a counterfactual in real time rather than history. This approach uses statical matching techniques to identify counterfactuals outside the project that best approximate its contemporary condition and risk of carbon loss. Sometimes it can be tricky to "get a good match," and there's lots of potential data, methodological, and practical challenges (particularly for REDD), but assuming good new science can overcome these challenges, dynamic baselines could be a more rigorous and efficient way of monitoring carbon project performance. How would ex-post dynamic baselines help solve the perverse incentive problem? Because ex-post dynamic baselines compare a project to contemporary counterfactuals outside the project, the project’s historical performance is irrelevant to credit yield. Bad actors can be rewarded for cleaning up their act, and good actors can be rewarded for continuing their good behavior, as long as they outperform their “matched” counterfactual. What do you think of this hypothesis? Let’s discuss!

62

37 Comments