ECOS’ Post

⛔ Ideology instead of knowledge. It has become common knowledge in the activist climate community that offsetting undermines GHG mitigation and we can one more time see a pushback against carbon credits. On one hand, this disregards solid research showing that companies relying on carbon credits are actually reducing their emissions. As a report from Trove Research shows companies that use material quantities of carbon credits are decarbonising at twice the rate of companies that do not use carbon credits. This also ignores the reality of climate policy. E.g. the EU ETS will stop suppling allowances to the primary market in 2040, while certain residual emissions will still be present. Or we introduce offsets or we deal with an extremely high carbon price. This brings me to another issue, this repeated pushback is also worrying from a just transition perspective. Especially, in Europe we are facing growing scepticism towards climate action and certain NGOs seem to be ignoring it or making unrealistic propositions to solve it. In the EU the carbon abatement cost in the combined industry & energy sector is at around 70 EUR per eq. t/CO2 . In other countries it might be 10, 20, 30 EUR. Bringing high quality offsets back into the EU ETS (would require several legal reforms) could ease financial pressure of decarbonization felt throughout the society. Last but not least, even in the IPCC reports it is stated that reaching the 1.5 C target will require CO2 removals. I guess these 80 NGO have a great idea how to fund this (irony). Regardless if someone likes it or not, our climate policy for many reasons needs offsetting and this ideological push mostly undermines the credibility of the NGOs standing behind it.

✊ The government have identified climate action as a core mission set out in their manifesto. ⚡ Framing this in terms of Britain becoming a ‘clean energy superpower’ has generated considerable initiative around renewed climate action. 🏛 However, in this article, Matthew Paterson from Sustainable Consumption Institute outlines how this approach creates policy gaps – and potential political problems. The first of our articles exploring the mission-driven government plan and what this approach means for future policy can be read here 👇 https://lnkd.in/ecG2d42n

Well taken and supported. One additional point would have been worthwhile mentioning: To facilitate market-driven decarbonization and use of removals only as a last resort, all #EUETS allowances (their auctioning) should be phased out a.s.a.p. and replaced by high-quality #RemovalCredits. Thus, the ETS will incentivize compliance companies to exhaust their decarbonization options before turning to the market in search of scarce and, most of the time, more expensive removals.

There is a role for carbon removals in the EU’s post 2030 climate framework. We joined leading academics, civil society organisations and progressive industries to call for it to complement, not substitute, emissions reductions: Read our letter here ➡ https://lnkd.in/enhm2Fv7 #3targets2040

Improving integrity is at the heart of ensuring growth of the voluntary carbon market, which in turn is essential for achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement. This article provides an overview of recent developments that are taking place to address integrity on both the supply and demand sides of the market. Reach out to a member of our climate team, if you would like to learn more about how your organisation could participate in the voluntary carbon market. Read more https://ow.ly/iABy50RmPnx

Carbon offsetting has no place in corporate climate targets – and new evidence published by Science Based Targets initiative confirms it. 📢 This backs up what environmental voices have already been calling for! Earlier this month, together with 80+ civil society organisations, we called on SBTi to stick to scientifically-sound methodologies for tracking corporate climate efforts. Companies must start with a focus on deep and immediate emissions reductions within their own value chains. ➡ Our joint statement: https://lnkd.in/ef-J_Uy6

🌊 🪸Read the Ocean Climate Action Report, where @Romany Webb and Sabin Center marine carbon dioxide removal publications are cited ➡️https://buff.ly/3RUGkhF 🔎 Check out our Carbon Management & #NegativeEmissions page, which lists our resources, projects & publications on legal issues associated with the development and use of negative emissions technologies: https://buff.ly/46b3RzG #CDR #OceanCDR #climatelaw

📢 The science is clear: carbon offsetting is not a reliable tool for tackling the climate crisis. Studies have repeatedly shown that offsetting has often failed to deliver additional emissions reductions. And today, 80+ civil society organisations are calling on carbon accounting and climate target setting bodies, including Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), to stick to science. Our joint statement 👇 🔗 https://lnkd.in/dYwTFT8a #CarbonOffsetting #ClimateScience #ClimateCrisis #ClimateTargets #EmissionsReductions

Thanks for sharing Margaret Morales and glad you think it's useful, we do too.🤸♂️ Any companies looking for further clarity on carbon credit related claims and the requirements for making them, head to our Climate Action Protocol https://lnkd.in/etzAj3gR #climateaction #climate #carboncredits

There are lots of global carbon credit standards. Recently some innovative players are emerging in biodiversity, tokenization and etc. Anyway below would be helpful to see different names of types of carbon credits by standard.