Bill Baue’s Post

Bill Baue Science Based Targets initiative is allowing SCOPE 3 credits?? Oh you mean “Beyond Value Chain” - that’s the new “rebranding”! Oh yes. They and their funders and NGO, corporate and private consultant partners have been planning this announcement for awhile now. Lots of “aligning.” This idea of Beyond Value Chain is the basis of Bezos Earth Fund and IKEA Foundation , SBTis new key funders, primary climate strategy. There is a reason Amazon and IKEA haven’t set SBTi SBTs! Now they can! See IKEAs SCOPE 3 credit strategy here: https://lnkd.in/gF3k7qm4 See Bezos Earth Funds push for VCMI here: https://lnkd.in/gXXnrnqn New branding with the same problems - How is BVC stuff going to avoid these common VCM issues, like independent verification, permanence, fair carbon price, high uncertainty? “It doesn’t” is how a Gold Standard staffer put it. The hope is that companies will set a high shadow price for carbon and demand integrity! Voluntarily? Hmmm 🪈😴💤💭😘🌙 And don’t forget SCOPE 3 insetting which relies on many of the same tools as offsetting such as VCMs…same problems. SBTi FLAG allows insetting via carbon offsetting tools. FLAG was meant to lay the groundwork for the latest shift in policy! The plot thickens…follow the $$$!

The recent developments surrounding the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), particularly highlighted by the latest Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor and the SBTi Board’s controversial endorsement of Scope 3 carbon credits, demand our immediate attention and reflection. These actions not only raise serious questions about the alignment of SBTi's policies with scientific consensus and necessary climate action but also underscore a troubling pattern of decision-making that lacks transparency and broad stakeholder consultation. It's concerning to hear reports of significant internal disagreement within the SBTi itself, including the Board's decision-making process and the apparent exclusion of the Technical Council and Technical Advisory Group from critical policy shifts. Such steps seem to diverge from the foundational principles of evidence-based decision-making and inclusive dialogue, essential for the credibility and effectiveness of any organization striving to lead on climate action. This moment could indeed be seen as a tipping point in how the broader community perceives SBTi's legitimacy and commitment to facilitating the urgent, science-aligned corporate action our planet desperately needs. The departure of members from the Technical Advisory Group in protest and the call for transparency and accountability are clear indicators of the depth of concern among those closely involved. As someone deeply invested in the integrity and success of climate action frameworks, my hope is that this moment serves as a catalyst for SBTi to reevaluate its approaches, enhance transparency, and realign with the scientific rigour and stakeholder inclusivity necessary for its mission. It's a pivotal time for introspection, not just for SBTi but for all stakeholders involved in the collective endeavour of addressing climate change. Let's advocate for and contribute to a course correction that brings SBTi's actions back in line with its vital global responsibility

I am delighted to share that the SBTi has released two new reports on beyond value chain mitigation (BVCM). The SBTi defines BVCM in our Corporate Net-Zero Standard as “mitigation action or investments that fall outside a company’s value chain, including activities that avoid or reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, or remove and store GHGs from the atmosphere.” BVCM occurs outside of company value chains and therefore does not reduce companies’ scope 1, 2 or 3 emissions. However, it plays an important role in allowing companies to help accelerate the global net-zero transformation, by enabling other economic and social actors to avoid, reduce or remove (GHG) emissions. Efforts to deliver BVCM must not replace or delay 1.5°C-aligned corporate value chain decarbonization. The two new reports are: •‘Above and Beyond: An SBTi report on the design and implementation of BVCM’ provides suggestions to support companies in the design and implementation of BVCM strategies to accelerate progress towards global net-zero. •‘Raising the Bar: An SBTi report on accelerating corporate adoption of BVCM’ explores the incentives for BVCM over which the broader climate ecosystem has influence, including civil society, academia, policymakers, standard setters, advocacy organizations and multilateral organizations. Additionally, we’re hosting a webinar on March 21 2024, at which I will provide an overview of the new reports followed by a live Q&A. 👉Register for the webinar here: https://lnkd.in/eyjTiSaN 👉Head to our website to view the reports and find out more: https://lnkd.in/e5agGuCA A HUGE thank you to the team and to our wonderful Expert Advisory Group members Alexander Farsan, Anita Otubu, Aman K Sidhu, Amir Safaei, Amir Sokolowski, Anshari Rahman, Astrid von Preussen, Bogolo Joy Kenewendo, Bhaskar Singh Karky, Brad Schallert, Candace Vinke, carlijn nouwen, Chandra Shekhar Silori, Charlotte Streck, Christa Anderson, Chidi Oti Obihara, Daniel Zarin, Danick Trouwloon, David Burns, Derik Broekhoff, Diksha Somai Pillay, Disha Agarwal, Donna Lee, Maosheng Duan,

Last week, I had the privilege of representing neustark at a three-day advocacy deep dive in Brussels, organized by the Negative Emissions Platform, where we engaged in critical discussions with members of the European Commission and Parliament. Throughout these discussions, we had the opportunity to highlight the potential of Carbon Dioxide Removal (“CDR”) and to advocate for policies that support CDR innovation, including: 🍃 The importance of setting separate targets for permanent CDR in the revision of the EU Climate Law. 🍃 The need for immediate public and private funding to support a wide array of CDR technologies and enable scale-up, with funding schemes that are flexible and adaptable to the needs of emerging CDR solutions. 🍃  The importance of creating a stable demand for carbon removals through a compliance market and long-term policy support, including public procurement policies to increase demand for recycled carbonated concrete in construction projects. This was a fantastic opportunity to promote policies that encourage and support neustark’s innovative solution, which captures biogenic CO₂ and stores it in demolition concrete — transforming the world’s largest waste stream into a carbon sink, permanently removing CO₂ from the atmosphere and generating negative emissions. A huge thank you to the Negative Emissions Platform team for making this happen and for all the hard work behind it. It is inspiring to see so many voices advocating for a stronger commitment to CDR in the EU’s climate leadership!

In April 2024, top scientists and carbon experts convened at Yale to tackle the challenges of improving nature-based carbon crediting. Despite unresolved technical debates, they agreed on one crucial point: scaling carbon credits is essential to meet climate goals. They proposed five guiding principles—urgency, practicality, science-based methods, adaptability, and accountability—to ensure that this vital tool evolves responsibly and effectively. https://lnkd.in/eiTDy_3c

✍️ Reflecting on the Science Based Targets initiative's statement, the ICR acknowledges and supports the nuanced approach towards the use of "environmental attribute certificates", including those from VCMs, for Scope 3 emission abatement. This alignment with scientific rigour and comprehensive standards resonates with our mission to enhance confidence in the carbon market by ensuring environmental integrity and promoting scalable climate solutions. We view this development as an opportunity to further bridge our efforts in facilitating impactful climate projects with the broader objectives of science-based targets, driving both innovation and credible climate action. 🌍

This week, the Negative Emissions Platform Members have gathered in Brussels for a series of discussions with EU policymakers. Over three days, NEP held meetings with influential figures in the European Commission, Parliament, and Council, who are instrumental in shaping the EU's approach to carbon removal (CDR).   We highlighted key steps to strengthen Europe’s role in CDR and climate leadership: ♾️  The importance of separate targets for permanent CDR in the revision of the EU Climate Law  ♾️ The need for immediate public and private funding to support the sector and begin scaling up  ♾️ A call for a compliance market for CDR to drive meaningful action   The message is clear: ❗ the time for action is now❗ Without decisive steps, the EU risks falling short of its climate targets and losing the chance to foster a thriving European CDR industry.   For a deeper dive into our key positions, please read NEP's paper on how carbon removals can bolster EU competitiveness: 🌐 https://lnkd.in/dU589qSG Thank you, Heirloom, Climeworks, Stockholm Exergi, Drax Group, Carbon Engineering, Rewind, neustark, Bioenergy Europe, Ørsted, Novocarbo, Carbo Culture, Carbonfuture, Isometric, Dansk Fjernvarme

The ECtHR finds violations of the Convention in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland due to insufficient measures to combat climate change In today's Grand Chamber judgment, the European Court of Human Rights, by a majority of sixteen votes to one, found Switzerland in violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and unanimously declared a violation of Article 6 § 1 (access to court). The case, brought forward by four women and the Swiss association Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, sheds light on the profound impact of climate change on individuals' lives, and the State's responsibility to address it. Despite concerns raised by these women regarding the adverse effects of global warming on their living conditions and health, the Swiss authorities were deemed to have failed to take sufficient action, contravening their duties under the Convention. The Court's judgment underscores the expansive interpretation of Article 8 of the Convention, which encompasses the right to effective protection by State authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change on lives, health, well-being, and quality of life. However, while the four individual applicants did not meet the victim-status criteria under Article 34 of the Convention, the applicant association was granted standing to bring the complaint on behalf of its members. For further insights into the Court's judgment and its implications, please refer to the ECHR's official press release and the Court's HUDOC database. Grand Chamber judgments take effect immediately and are transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of their execution. Information about the execution process can be found here: https://lnkd.in/e7FnsPwX.

🌍 "Article 8 must be seen as encompassing a right for individuals to effective protection by the State authorities from serious adverse effects of climate change on their life, health, well-being and quality of life". This is the headline conclusion from the European Court of Human Rights' judgment in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland. The case was brought by Swiss claimants who alleged that their government had not done enough to mitigate the effects of climate change. The Court found that Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) had been breached. The judgment is highly significant, and is likely to influence litigation against both governments and companies. Although related cases against France (Carême) and Portugal and 32 other states (Duarte Agostinho) failed on admissibility and jurisdiction grounds, it is the Swiss judgment which will be most closely scrutinized in the weeks and months ahead. We will be considering further the implications of this judgment for climate litigation in Europe. https://lnkd.in/egK2d28T

It‘s going to be a historic week for climate litigation in Europe and beyond, but especially for my home country Switzerland🇨🇭. ❗️At a public hearing on Tuesday, 9 April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) will, for the first time in history, render its judgments in three cases in which the court is asked to decide if insufficient action to mitigate climate change is a violation of human rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular the right to life (Art. 2), the right to private and family life (Art. 8), the right to an effective remedy (Art. 13), and the prohibition of discrimination (Art. 14). Switzerland is a respondent state in two of the three cases: 1️⃣ In Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others, youth plaintiffs from Portugal claim that the respondent states are violating their human rights to life, privacy and non-discrimination as a result of insufficient action against climate change. See https://lnkd.in/gfWzEpdn for more information. 2️⃣ In Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, a group of elderly women is asking the ECtHR to require the Swiss government to strengthen its climate policies and targets. The group is also seeking recognition of climate protection as a human right. See the association’s website https://lnkd.in/gyurKgyc for more information. 3️⃣ In Carême v. France, a former mayor of the municipality of Grande-Synthe (France) claims that France’s measures to reduce carbon emissions are insufficient to prevent global warming and violate his rights to life and family life. For more information see https://lnkd.in/gF3QbUiC. The recording of the public hearing will be available here (after the hearing): https://lnkd.in/gS7SH9Xy