Adrian Wons

Overhelmed with EU sustainability regulation? Please don’t stress. Time to start automating the report writing. Get in touch to learn how you can do this.

4

Phaeton REDD+ Credits Executive Summary June 14, 2024 - The imperative to price forest carbon appropriately and establish effective channels for payment is critical to meeting the 2030 mitigation objectives. Despite over 15 years of discourse, compensation for emissions reductions from forests remains disproportionately low, both in terms of pricing and quantity. Concurrently, proven mechanisms from other sectors, which enhance the catalytic potential of public funds and private sector involvement, are notably absent from the arsenal against deforestation and forest degradation. Urgent change is imperative. Here are the key highlights from this report which the Phaeton Carbon team has analysed: Costs of High-Quality Emissions Reductions (ERs) from REDD+: While high-quality and high-integrity ERs from REDD+ are cost-effective, they are not inexpensive. Different emissions reductions carry varying costs, with forest carbon averaging $30-50/tCO2. Additionally, as the demand for REDD+ escalates to bridge the emissions gap, competition with alternative land uses will drive up forest carbon costs progressively. Adhering to cutting-edge accounting and crediting standards necessary for high-integrity ERs will entail significant expenses. By 2030, the marginal cost of scalable, high-quality ERs from REDD+ could equal compliance market carbon prices. Fair Compensation and Market Integration: Ensuring fair compensation for forest carbon is contingent upon amplifying transactions of REDD+ ERs on compliance markets. Integration into compliance markets could notably augment both price and volume compared to voluntary carbon markets. Initial revenue from voluntary markets can facilitate the development of market institutions, including jurisdictional-level monitoring and reporting, while gradually enhancing compliance with state-of-the-art standards. This progression could transform ERs from REDD+ into fungible assets in the emergent global compliance carbon market, offering equitable compensation to tropical forest countries. Eventually, elevated forest carbon prices on compliance markets would incentivize these nations to prioritize robust policies for forest conservation and restoration, alongside more ambitious NDC targets. In close collaboration with numerous organizations in Northern India, Phaeton is dedicated to supporting such initiatives. We are committed to fostering a sustainable future in partnership with traditional laner owners and the indigenous people of India, offering the opportunity to pre-sell REDD+ Credits through Phaeton's Carbon Credit Exchange. Project Readiness Development: ·        Signed NOC with the community for 25,000 hectares. ·        Drone mapping of 6,000 hectares of identified forest has been completed. ·        Registration with Verra and project development under VCS (Verified Carbon Standard) For media inquiries, please contact: [email protected]

5

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

3rd IFRIC submission on IAS38 asset recognition of carbon credits and intellectual capital...cat and pigeons… Our 3rd IFRIC submission on climate-related commitments was made last week and published yesterday. https://lnkd.in/ee4pPiF7 The IASB's April Agenda Decision was confusing in explaining the asset treatment (and generally)—stating: "The Committee observed that if a provision is recognised,the corresponding amount is recognised as an expense, rather than as an asset, unless it gives rise to—or forms part of the cost of—an item that qualifies for recognition as an asset in accordance with an IFRS Accounting Standard" Sorry, what? This 3rd submission is therefore designed to clear that up—based on a real world commitment and explaining that the two primary means of meeting a 2030 commitment—carbon credits and innovation—meet the definition and recognition criteria under IAS38 (Intangible Assets). This one puts a very large and quite scary cat in amongst the pigeons. Despite an initial response that this discussion may not happen in September, we're being pretty insistent that it does. Thanks to Thomas Annicq for help in making carbon credits easy to understand. Nikhil Chouguley Saurabh Jain-Punamiya Paddy Linighan Vincent Huck Peter Hislop Speers Hillary Salo Cain Blythe Richard Peers Sophie Robinson-Tillett Mike Clark Nick Spencer Eric Israël Mark Runnalls Paul W Chan Dominic Endicott Mei Lin Fung Jacob Soll Rebecca Kershaw Tessa Vincent Lee Harris Simon Mundy Sasja Beslik Clara Miller Gillian Marcelle, PhD Andrew Griffiths Mark Cliffe Sophia Leonora Mendelsohn Natalie Hollier Narayan P.S. Lingaraj Dinni Radhica Kanniganti Daniel Schmid

20

6 Comments

3 things to think about when selecting #emissionfactors for your carbon accounting 👇 __ First of all, this was just an awesome episode of Next Frontier 🌍 with Philipp, one of the founders behind Climatiq - an API for carbon calculations that basically specialize in emission factors. So we talked about, guess what, emission factors! We really nerded out on it, and since emission factors are behind every single footprint number you see, anywhere, it's extremely helpful to understand the data behind the scenes 🤓 __ Anyways, back to the above premise. Since emission factors hold the majority of the assumptions powering your carbon calculation, the selection of emission factors can seem like a daunting task. Philipp shares 3 key pieces of advice. 1️⃣ Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. This is a repeated mantra when working with sustainability data, and you'll hear us talking a lot about it in the episode - and in the show in general! Remember you're calculating your emissions in the first place to guide action. So get to an actionable number that you can use for prioritization, don't spend forever optimizing assumptions to get to the perfect number. 2️⃣ Stick to one dataset. Auditors really like it when you use the same dataset, as it's more comparable. Again, back to the above. Footprint calculation is partly done to help you prioritize and focus - that becomes difficult if different activities rely on a completely different set of methodologies and assumptions. You can mix and match, but you need to explain yourself (and in turn do more analysis to ensure you can indeed mix and match). 3️⃣ If there's no dataset for your region, see if you can use a country with a similar energy mix as a proxy. Spotty data for your precise activities is a given when calculating emissions. Again, back to the first point; be pragmatic. When using regional data, it ultimately comes down to energy mix, so when selecting proxies, ensure you use a country with a similar energy mix as the one your activity is in. __ What do you think? Any other key advice or experiences when selecting what emission factors to work with? Philipp, thank you so much for coming on the show - I really enjoyed this one. Check out Next Frontier 🌍 where ever you get your podcasts - link in comments.

16

1 Comment

The EU term for "embodied carbon" is “embedded carbon” or "carbon footprint of products" in the context of life cycle assessments (LCA) and product environmental footprints (PEF). In EU regulatory and sustainability frameworks, "embodied carbon" generally refers to the greenhouse gas emissions associated with a product's entire life cycle, including raw material extraction, manufacturing, transportation, use, and end-of-life disposal. These emissions are accounted for in various EU climate change and sustainability policies, such as the EU Taxonomy Regulation, Eco-design Directive, and Circular Economy Action Plan. CBAM stands for Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, an important initiative by the European Union to address carbon leakage and promote fair competition for companies both within and outside the EU. It is part of the EU’s broader European Green Deal and its goal to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. CBAM places a carbon price on imported goods from countries with less stringent carbon regulations than the EU. The idea is to equalize the playing field by ensuring that EU companies, which already face carbon pricing under the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), are not at a competitive disadvantage to foreign companies that might be able to produce goods more cheaply due to lower environmental regulations. Embodied carbon is becoming a crucial factor in sustainability assessments and is particularly emphasized in the construction sector, where materials such as concrete and steel contribute significantly to a building’s overall carbon footprint. The term is often discussed in the context of achieving net-zero carbon goals and in carbon accounting for infrastructure and buildings.

5

1 Comment

🌍🌱 EU CBAM: A Strategic Move for Climate and Industry 🌱🌍 The EU’s CBAM is a bold stride towards harmonizing economic activity with ecological responsibility. By imposing a carbon tax on imports of high-carbon products, the EU is championing a greener economy while protecting its industries from carbon-cost disparities. 💼🌿 📅 A Transparent Transition: During the 2023–2026 transition phase, importers are adapting to the new system through the CBAM Transitional Registry. Starting in 2026, the focus shifts to actual emissions data, reflecting the EU’s commitment to precision in carbon accounting. 📈 🔍 CBAM’s Holistic Method: Beyond direct production emissions, CBAM accounts for indirect emissions, such as those from power generation. This comprehensive approach ensures a full spectrum analysis of a product’s environmental impact. 🌐 🌟 Implications for the Developing World: The introduction of CBAM certificates may impose financial burdens on developing nations. Tools like the World Bank’s Relative CBAM Exposure Index are essential for these countries to navigate the changing trade landscape. 🌍💼 💡 Tunisia’s Strategic Path Forward: As Tunisia faces the challenges posed by CBAM, it’s crucial to harness the insights from the CBAM Exposure Index. Proactive measures could include investing in cleaner production technologies, diversifying export markets, and engaging in international carbon markets. These strategies will not only mitigate the impact of CBAM but also enhance Tunisia’s long-term economic resilience and environmental sustainability. 🛤️🌿 #ClimateAction #Sustainability #GreenEconomy #EURegulations #CBAM #Tunisia #CarbonJar #MENA

7

As part of Germany and the EU's ambitious climate goals, industrial companies are now facing a flood of new regulations and reporting obligations. With the goal of achieving greenhouse gas neutrality by 2045, companies are under pressure to meet environmental protection laws, energy efficiency standards, and CSR requirements, among others. This wave of regulations, especially in the mechanical and plant engineering sectors, poses significant challenges, particularly for companies that lack in-house expertise or capacity. This is where digitalization becomes more critical than ever. Digital and connected data and document management are key to navigating these regulatory requirements efficiently. But beyond that, the ability to simulate these changes before construction is a game changer. Virtual plants offer the unique advantage of testing new regulatory standards virtually, ensuring compliance and optimizing operations before committing to costly physical changes. How are you currently managing the flood of new sustainability regulations in your company? Photo by: Kunibert Stefer #Sustainability #Digitalization #VirtualPlant #GreenTech #IndustrialTransformation #Regulations #GreenEnergy #Innovation #Industry40 #Manufacturing

84

2 Comments

Here is something interesting - Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF) has launched a public consultation on its newly developed guidance and methods, which include guidance for measuring avoided emissions also popular as Scope 4 emissions. Why is that important? Because avoided emissions are still a grey area and we should quickly come up with robust frameworks for reporting of Scope 4/avoided emissions (I don't say estimating because IPMPV and other standards have provided solid methodologies for estimation). Here are some definitions from the PCAF documents: Avoided emissions are the reduction in systemic emissions resulting from a project, product, or service compared to a counterfactual scenario, or put simply, emissions reductions that would not occur should the project, product, or service in question not exist Differences between Scope 3 reductions and avoided emissions: • Scope 3 emissions accounting takes a company’s point of view. In particular, emissions reductions of products are seen as changes in several scope 3 categories, which together reflect the life cycle emission of sold products. Further, scope 3 emissions are only compared to the same company’s scope 3 emissions from previous years, whereas avoided emissions are compared to the most likely alternative that would have occurred without the solution, which could be a product from another company or a completely different solution altogether. • Avoided emissions accounting is built from a societal context and the use of the solutions’ point of view, where two situations are compared: one with the solution sold by the company, the other with the most likely scenario that would have occurred without the solution. Avoided emissions give an estimated emissions reduction in society due to the use of the solution but outside the solution provider’s scope 1-3 emissions. #scope4 #carbon #RumenPresents

19

5 Comments

Carbon capture can never be good for anybody except maybe fossil fuel stockholders. I am a BIG supporter of the wonderful work the United StatesDOE does, with the exception of any money wasted to research or implement carbon capture contraptions. However it will not stop or slow the great global renewable energy overbuild that will result in energy independence everywhere. Energy Independence’s cheap sometimes free energy everywhere is evolution’s path to climate stability, peace, and prosperity.

1

The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is a key policy tool that forms part of the European Green Deal (EGD) to reduce net GHG emissions across Europe and abroad. Within this context, CBAM can be defined as a carbon border tax on embedded GHG emissions of carbon-intensive products imported into the EU, also from SA. In this series on Future Cities Africa, we unpack its implications on business, building business resilience, key opportunities, where to find support, and much more. “Preparing Western Cape businesses for CBAM challenges and opportunities", is a three-part series supported by the Western Cape Government Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, produced in partnership with GreenCape, featuring: - Gaylor Montmasson-Clair - Senior Economist at Trade & Industrial Policy Strategies TIPS (NPC) Watch/ Read here: https://lnkd.in/eDgtP5kT - Ilse van Schalkwyk - Chief Director: Economic Sector Support, Western Cape Department of Economic Development and Tourism Watch/ Read here: https://lnkd.in/d4sks7MN - Karen Bosman - Head: Advocacy & Advisory at Wesgro Watch/ Read here: https://lnkd.in/d_ad-ceq

49

💸 Why we can’t afford a single materiality perspective in climate politics 🌏 The expected costs of #climatechange (blue and red) exceed the costs of mitigation (turquoise) multi-fold under all climate scenarios. In other words: We could limit the costs of climate change to the costs of mitigation, but we’re not on track to do so. Why? A look at the #materiality discourse provides an answer: Financial materiality in business practice means avoiding both the costs of climate damage (physical risks) and the #mitigation costs (transition risks). It is an attempt to stay above the zero line by letting other companies and society bear the costs. ❗Logically, only a few companies will succeed in this. For the vast majority of firms, the costs will inevitably hit them. Because climate risks cannot be managed fully and accurately! Even if companies are initially successful in strategically avoiding them, they will likely be hit by second-order and macroeconomic follow-up effects. The economy is too interconnected. But: If all companies could coordinate to mitigate climate change, only the mitigation costs would have to be shouldered. In theory, this is the most economically favorable way. ❗However, this would require a true #doublemateriality perspective: Managing ALL corporate impacts (that form the totality of all looming costs) collectively instead of trying to strategically avoid them individually.

33

Worldwide, an estimated 20+ million informal waste workers are making a difference but paying the price. All told, they add more value than peers in the public and private sectors. Quantifying their impact is key to understanding appropriate compensation and formalization models. A win-win-win is possible. Given future urbanization, megacity, food security, and climate challenges, harnessing their skills will be essential in advancing sustainable cities. We make a case for income levels close to or on par with sustainability specialists, traders, etc., in the formal and private sectors. #wastemanagement #foodwaste #climatechange #methaneemissions #sustainablecities #sdg2030

2

The original proposal from the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) would have let industrial owners off the hook on reporting on GHG Protocol Scope 3 emissions, making any such monitoring and measuring voluntary. This would have been a grave mistake, as the only possible way to ever achieving anything close to Net Zero, is a full and clear accounting of embodied carbon in all materials and products. In the Age of the #ClimateEconomy, @SBTi getting itself back on track is #missioncritical to any meeting of #GHGemissions targets, whether voluntary or regulatory in nature. The more and the faster all organizations are able to move ahead of regulatory requirements, the better. #datacenters #digitalinfra IDCA - International Data Center Authority

6

#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

Do you know how to overcome the financial challenges of renewable microgrids in Africa? Microgrid financing is key to ensuring universal access to electricity on the continent by 2030. However, developers face unique obstacles: high financing costs, lack of familiarity from local banks and foreign exchange risks. This webinar will give you the keys to overcome these challenges and facilitate rural electrification. Get more information ➡ https://bit.ly/40ihIof ⬅ 📅 Date: November 13 Time: 13:00 GMT / 14:00 CET / 16:00 EAT (check your local time) Speakers: Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Rams - CEO, Africa GreenTec Joshua Amponsem - Founder, Green Youth Africa Organization Green Africa Youth Organization (GAYO) In this webinar you will discover: - How to mitigate financial risks in microgrid projects. - Support instruments from international institutions and governments. - Key strategies to secure financing. Get more information ➡ https://bit.ly/40ihIof ⬅

8

Below you can see a sneak peek of our GHG peer benchmarking dataset for Drug Manufacturers. Each row represents a company. The numerical columns then contain the Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 GHG emissions disclosures (including the 15 sub-categories of Scope 3). Crucially, there are two additional columns showing the source and page number of the report where the numbers came from. I have highlighted the row for Bayer one of the biggest drugs companies. If you then click on the URL in the spreadsheet you are taken to the Bayer sustainability report which you can see below. And you will find that the numbers in our spreadsheet match the numbers in the report! There was a lot of automation (Python code) and human effort that went into the creation of our datasets. However, I have banned the use of AI in the creation of our datasets. Why? Because as soon as you start using generative AI in the process, you need to replace your source with "probablistically drawn from a bag of stuff from the internet". That's not going to work with the regulations. Yes to automation Yes to data lineage No to AI #sustainabilityreporting #carbonbenchmark

10

2 Comments

This article, once again, raises a valid concern regarding nature based solutions (NBS) and carbon credits as a whole. If credits are issued for forests which then are burnt by destructive wildfires beyond what was set aside as a buffer, the credits will have had no effect and even worse - granted polluters the right to continue doing so without the balancing effect of carbon capture. However, maybe it is too harsh to throw the entire concept of nature based carbon credits into the greenwashing bin. I think it all is about the money, as always. For example, if the money given to a forest owner for carbon credits is used to plant new trees or to protect or improve the forest health conditions, the carbon credits will have a positive impact on climate change, even if there is a risk that the forest goes up in smoke. Without carbon credits, money for postive measures might not be available and thus would not happen. In the end, I think it's all about verification, trust and accountability - which is where the problem is. How can we know and trust that money given to carbon credit issuers will be used to improve the forest rather than for profit without having a positive impact? Do we trust that the verification mechanisms put in place are effective and not corrupt? Of course in the end, the article has a point in stating that the real solution to climate change is not carbon credits, but phasing out fossil fuels. https://lnkd.in/dSWFJwu2

13