BSR’s Post

The recent debate with respect to the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) reflects a broader struggle between practical progress and ambitious climate goals. As companies navigate new regulations, Scope 3 emissions, and the rise of energy-intensive technologies, the tension between achieving meaningful emissions reductions and adapting to evolving challenges intensifies. This "dilemma decade" calls for a nuanced approach, integrating bold targets with actionable steps to meet climate science imperatives.

More on the Science Based Targets initiative front: this Bloomberg piece by Alastair Marsh sheds some new light, including more details on pushback by SBTi Staff against the SBTi Board and senior leadership. https://lnkd.in/eZgkMKwg And on a related front, there's this ad https://lnkd.in/e_fn4Wb8 for a new Chief Impact Officer at SBTi -- it seems Maria Outters is on her way out -- I suspect this is only the first in a growing trend of those who will abandon ship. Those who remain will have their work cut out for them, given the hostile environment (Alistair and his colleague Ben Elgin broke the story on the physical intimidation SBTi staff members -- including Scarlett Benson -- faced in retaliation for SBTi's opposition to Scope 3 offsets) and deeply entrenched dysfunctional governance at SBTi (the latest article reveals staff resistance to CEO Luiz Fernando do Amaral's pressure to move faster than feasible.) All of this is framed in the broader context of the Biden Administration announcing "New Principles for High-Integrity Voluntary Carbon Markets" yesterday https://lnkd.in/e-zDg79t Interestingly, the Financial Times put a different spin on this announcement, with its headline "Janet Yellen warns companies not to rely on carbon credits to save the climate" https://lnkd.in/e2ZfJ9pX The focus is on "high integrity" offsets -- which is an oxymoron, when one looks at the actual evidence. As I've said before, offset markets demonstrate *low* integrity at the offset provider level (South Pole) and standards level (Verra), all nested in a monocapitalist economic system that attacks ecological and social integrity. The fact that the US government is pushing a market-based approach reliant of scope 3 offsets raises questions about its own integrity... (Indeed, I've seen Holger Hoffmann-Riem of the SBTi Technical Advisory Group point out that the double-counting inherent in scope 3 will inevitably lead to double-offsetting.) Furthermore, I have compiled mountains of evidence https://lnkd.in/gW29wuwt that SBTi can only be defined as a low integrity institution -- this latest Bloomberg piece adds more evidence of SBTi being low-integrity. So the question I ask again: how can we expect high-integrity carbon markets to magically emerge from multiscale low integrity systems?

Companies (and public authorities) need to continue the work of decreasing carbon emissions, even from scope 3, even if it means significant business evolutions. The priority is to phase out fossil fuels, rapidly. Not to use offseting. Solutions exist and need to be strenghtened.

📣 Step back in corporate climate actions ❌ Climact shares the concerns of many actors that Science Based Targets initiative latest decision could lead to a decreased corporate decarbonisation ambition ⛔ Companies have an essential role to play in decarbonising not only their own activities, but also work together with their partners, employees & clients to decarbonise their value-chain in line with climate-science. 🔹 Scope 3 (indirect emissions) decarbonisation is not easy. However, many possibilities already exist today to reduce scope 3 emissions. 🔹 Increased flexibility in using traditional offsets would thus be a step back in incentivising corporate climate action. 🔹 It is also a false promise for EU-companies since ESRS E1-4 asks to disclose targets based on gross emission reductions without taking into account any removal or avoidance credits. We look forward to the release of the concrete guidance Science Based Targets initiative announced to better understand what types of attributes can be used in which situation to make a final verdict on the credibility of this change in course of SBTi. To be continued! 👂 #climateaction #corporateaction #climatechange #sciencebasedtargets #carboncredits #burningnews Pieterjan Vaneerdewegh Jerome Meessen Pascal Vermeulen Hugues de Meulemeester Sacha Breyer Gaétane Ronsmans Laurie Pazienza

https://lnkd.in/gGC8vVRP The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has announced a major revision to its Corporate Net-Zero Standard, set to be implemented in 2025. This update aims to align the standard with the latest climate science, including recommendations from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the UN High-Level Expert Group. Key objectives include - i) to align with the latest scientific thinking and best practice ii) to address challenges related to scope 3 target setting and implementation iii) to integrate continuous improvement and target delivery iv) to improve structure and enhance interoperability with other SBTi standards as well as other relevant external frameworks and standards The revision process will involve stakeholder feedback, rigorous research, consultation, pilot testing, and final approval by SBTi’s governance bodies. 

CDRterra scientist Sabine Fuss of Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) gGmbH is lead author of the #StateofCDR report 2024. In chapter 4 she assesses the state of CDR in terms of the voluntary #carbonmarket (VCM). Its key insights: 🔸 The vast majority of #carboncredits retired (used and thus no longer tradable) on the VCM relate to projects that avoid or reduce emissions, rather than remove carbon. In 2023, CDR credits accounted for less than 10% of total credits sold on the #VCM. 🔸The market for novel #CDR is nascent but growing, whereas the market for conventional CDR is more mature. Some VCM projects also adopt mixed methodologies, which generate credits from both CDR and avoided emissions. 🔸The number of credits issued for conventional CDR fell in 2023 from approximately 20.4 million to 13.3 million, while purchases of future novel CDR credits grew sevenfold from 600,000 to 4.6 million. 🔸The market plays a larger role in financing novel CDR than conventional CDR. Credits issued for afforestation/reforestation represent less than 1% of the total #afforestation/reforestation CDR that occurred in 2023. By contrast, pre-purchases for novel CDR well exceeded the total amount removed through novel methods in 2023. 🔸The price per carbon credit is substantially higher for CDR than for other credit types. On average, credits from conventional CDR methods (which ranged from $12 to $16 in 2023) cost three times more than credits generated from emission reduction or avoidance projects. The average weighted price for novel CDR credits (which ranged from $111 to $1,608 in 2023) exceeds the price for credits from emission reduction or avoidance projects by a factor of 100. 🔸Despite emergent efforts to standardize and integrate CDR into compliance markets and the emerging regime under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, there may always be a case for the VCM to exist as a niche market for CDR to facilitate innovation and experimentation and to supplement climate change mitigation efforts. Find out more about the #SoCDR report: https://lnkd.in/dkK833SR Steve Smith Greg Nemet Oliver Geden Jan Minx Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment - University of Oxford

Great insight on the #StateofCDR's chapter 4 - Voluntary Carbon Market 👇

Thx Alexia for the very clear insight. Totally agree that SBTi is helpful, but only in a limited way given it does not provide clear incentives for companies to do BVCM.  What is the answer, though? Does the VCMI claims guidance provide this incentive? 

The most interesting, and dare I say, most important question to be answered on this week’s about-face by the board and CEO of #SBTi is 'how did it happen'? This story, published today together with Ben Elgin, goes some way to answering that: #carbonmarkets #netzero #ESG #climatechange https://lnkd.in/eiMzJ5Ap

"Why the SBTi’s proposal to include carbon credits is on the right side of climate history?" https://lnkd.in/grUkP5sF "April 24 - The recent statement from the board of the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) that it will consider recognizing environmental attribute certificates, including carbon credits, for abatement purposes in tackling value chain emissions, marks a significant milestone in the global battle against climate change. This is a bold step that will help accelerate corporate climate action around the world." Hmmm..."right" for whom? Science Based Targets initiative We Mean Business Coalition or @We Mean We ARE Business #offsets #science #practical #smoke #virtue