I'm sure this will be a divisive comment: but I'm not convinced that vilifying corporate spending on carbon markets helps address the chronically underfunded protection and investment in nature-based solutions we all know we need to protect life on Earth. Could carbon offsetting be used as a mechanism to mislead consumers or shareholders on the action a company should actually be taking to address climate risk - for sure - and should companies do all they can to halt emissions or transition their sectors - of course... but in the absence of a global price on carbon (or other such externalities) that prices that in, how else will we stimulate this nascent market and have any hope of achieving carbon negative emissions into the second half of this century. This isn't just "Net Zero"... or "Zero", even... the AR6 shows we need deep carbon removals. I posit we need more supportive language, more nuanced engagement, and more collective action. #climatecrisis #carbonmarkets
📢 The science is clear: carbon offsetting is not reliable for tackling the climate crisis. We've joined 80+ civil society organisations to call on climate target-setting bodies including @sciencetargets to stick to science. Read our joint statement: https://lnkd.in/dmA_5mRs
Sure, but what chance do we 'mere mortals' have in properly assessing the validity and credibility of a nature based solution/credit, when you yourself as one of the world's largest auditing firms can be 'fooled' by overstated Kariba forest credits for a 2025 net zero statement? https://tinyurl.com/3fys8nan I might be wrong.
Criticisms should be encouraged as part of a balanced and rational analysis as every voice should have the opportunity to contribute. We can agree to disagree, but all parties should hopefully base their arguments on the same information resources. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/david-v-cabral_today-a-group-of-ngos-published-a-letter-activity-7214248853946920960-Lyly?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop
"They risk disincentivizing the significant investments needed to ensure profound changes to corporate value chains and economic systems." Do carbon credits allow the global north to idle around serious value chain transition? If anything, carbon credits do not seem to be a long-term solution.
I respectfully disagree with Client Earth's stance on dismissing all carbon offset initiatives outright. Their dedication to supporting people and the planet, particularly communities affected by climate disasters, sends a conflicting message. While it is true that not all offset solutions are of equal quality, there are many credible and effective schemes in existence. These projects undergo rigorous verification processes and make significant contributions to both people and the planet. Blanket statements dismissing all carbon solutions can lead to confusion and undermine efforts to combat climate change. Credible carbon offset solutions provide support to communities already facing the impacts of climate change, promote sustainable development, and safeguard crucial ecosystems. By carefully choosing and backing verified offset projects, we can ensure that our actions are truly making a positive difference. Addressing climate change requires a multifaceted approach, and credible carbon offsetting is just one of the tools available to help mitigate our impact. I urge everyone to conduct thorough research and select reputable solutions that align with their sustainability goals.
Couldn’t agree more Matt. If used, not as a licence to misbehave, but as part of a considered and accountable transition plan carbon credits have the potential to enable the transition at pace both within organisations and at a macro level. Like you I am struggling to see not only how organisations can accelerate transition but importantly how certain countries and particular key areas like sustainable agriculture, nature and biodiversity can fund their transition without some kind of carbon price. If used carefully and transparently carbon markets can be an important element of the transition - but never instead of it. Kasia Klaczynska Lewis Malwina Burzec Jeff Soar Joost Vreeswijk Jesper Solgaard Iwan Walters Kristen GrayStuart Gregory
High integrity carbon markets are critical, as even if all value chain emissions are removed then there's still a lot of historic / unattributed emissions to draw down from the atmosphere, plus the co-benefits for nature like you mentioned. The point is that they shouldn't always count towards targets or be deployed in place of actual emissions reduction (and certainly shouldn't be used to justify increased fossil fuel production), a nuance which seems to have been missed a bit from the latest debates.
I had just this conversation with an institution this week (!).. 'do we keep offsetting or is it now taboo?'. Offsetting remains full of incredible potential to direct capital into Nature restoration, without which we're all doomed. It's one of those positive climate adaptations that CAN have multiple co-benefits - e.g. in Oz we have an offset product that directs finance into biodiversity restoration via local First Nations communities, who are effectively being funded to restore Country... what's not to like about that?! (and it's a carbon offset scheme) Offsetting is merely a tool, not a philosophy, so if we use the tool in the right way it can work wonders. It's not doing that yet, but it could if we stopped being so divisive and focused on desired outcomes (e.g. not being doomed). Rather than cancel offsets, make them better.
I hear you. My defenses go up at any mention of offsets, insetting, carbon credits... But at the same time, I do see the very positive effects we could have by investing in nature based solutions and giving credit and financial support to anything from farmers to forest managers who do things right and have a positive impact. I hate to call for more tracking and regulation too. But how do we keep out the bad faith actors or even just the good faith poorly managed programs?
The fundamental issue is that avoidance-based carbon credits are mostly useless, i.e. they are "reductions" only due to accounting legere-de-main. Removal-based credits are physical reductions. The "quality" varies based on the removal process with nature-based solutions generally being higher "quality."
Board member, Riverstone Energy (LSE:RSE) | Lecturer, Stanford Graduate School of Business/Doerr School of Sustainability | Climate tech investor and advisor | Carbon fund manager | Global SDG Council on Future Fuels
1wIt is a shame that those criticising offsets do not understand the need to develop often high-risk infrastructure and other projects in the Global South which reduce emissions. Carbon markets help to finance these investments. The need to use carbon finance for adaptation funding is even more critical. This will become a North South debate, and while we are debating, Rome will burn.