Calyx Global’s Post

Update to Oxford Offsetting Principles. Good reminder of the bigger picture: 1. reduce emissions. 2. offset with high quality credits. 3. contribute to climate action beyond net zero. And always remember how much nature does to maintain climate stability -- beyond what we count as offsets.

These principles help many companies navigate their net zero strategy - I'm excited to see an update. This market is moving quickly, we are learning fast and change is everywhere. Guidelines that shape the market need to keep pace. Well done University of Oxford. See Calyx Global's take and insights on the update below.

I like the University of Oxford Principles for carbon offsetting because it takes into account where we are TODAY vs. where we need to be in the FUTURE -- including: - A desperate need to reduce emissions now, so encourages buying credits that help to avoid emissions today... - That removals are also important, and there are nature-based removals that can also be purchased today... - ...but that durable removals will be critical for the future, so it's also good to invest into emerging technologies. It's that simple. I feel there is too much confusion on "removals vs. avoidance" and the Oxford Principles cuts through that in offering a useful way to think about what to do today... and how to transition to tomorrow. Calyx Global ratings confirm this approach -- the vast majority of our highest-rated credits are avoided emissions. There are also some reasonable nature-based removal credits. Durable CDR is expensive and we cannot expect companies to compensate residual emissions entirely with these credits today. Read our blog to explore these ideas further! And many thanks to the people who put together the Oxford Offsetting Principles. A really excellent piece of work.

✨🌞💫 Carbon Removals are now strongly enshrined within #UNFCCC & Article 6.4! This is exactly the massive cause for celebrations to bring about much needed Hope towards the realization of a technology-agnostic levelling of the playing field in the carbon markets, and just in time for COP29 Azerbaijan! 🌻📡 Other ecosystems such as those at nexus of International Development and Sustainability, can certainly learn much from this approach to aligning sectors, which rather than stifling #Innovation; instead spurs and nurtures #Innovation, through embracing continuous improvement, encouraging excellence, and rewarding technology-agnostic progress. ☘️🚀 Mandulis Energy Verst Carbon Puro.earth Seagrass Palladium: Make It Possible Global Green Growth Institute Carbon Business Council The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) This certainly opens up an exciting conversation around the role of removals in climate resilience & climate change mitigation, especially in nature-anchored emerging economies. 🌳🛰 Next up will be bringing to the mainstream: Digital MRV incorporating IoT & AI. 🌴🛸 Mr. Alfred Okot Okidi David Gonahasa Cecilia Alonyo Melissa Kirabo David Bikhado OFUNGI Nyangena Brian Charles Waweru Patrícia Silva Adolfo Cires Caitlin Sparks Meghan Edge Gabriella Oken Wilbur Carolina Fernandes Fanny Modin Rachel Lee Olivier Van Pee Gulmina A. Malikzade

⭐ Big news for carbon removal! Carbon removal has a new international standard ahead of COP29. The Article 6.4 Supervisory Body, part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, finalized requirements for activities involving carbon removal under the Article 6.4 Mechanism. ✒ The carbon removal definition used in the international standard aligns with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) definition that the Carbon Business Council called for. ✉ The Carbon Business Council organized a letter signed by more than 100 carbon removal leaders from around the world to the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body’s expanding on why carbon removal is an essential component for a just energy transition and to limit warming to 1.5 °C, along with the variety of co-benefits from carbon removal pathways. The letter requested for the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body to adopt the UN’s IPCC definition of carbon removal to create a level playing field for removals and spur innovation. 🔖 The A6.4-SBM014-A06 standard lays the groundwork for tech-neutral policy for carbon removal, and includes removals storage in “geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in products.” The implementation of the standard will be an ongoing process, including what methodologies are eligible. 🌎 Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement shapes how global carbon markets operate. Resources: 📄Carbon Business Council resources on the new standard: https://lnkd.in/df5k3EBu  📄A6.4-SBM014-A06, Requirements for activities involving removals under the Article 6.4 mechanism (V01.0) , the new international carbon removal standard:  https://lnkd.in/dMWB7pjH  📄Carbon Business Council’s 2023 letter about why carbon removal is such an integral element of Article 6 and the Paris Agreement: https://lnkd.in/efPjiaJt  📄Background About Article 6: https://lnkd.in/exMBHt9v  📄Carbon Business Council’s Issue Brief on Defining Carbon Removal: https://lnkd.in/dgWdFfrQ 📄Carbon Business Council’s Issue Brief on Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification: https://lnkd.in/dW--BDNH

Carbon crediting is a crucial tool in climate change mitigation, originating from international agreements like the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Climate Agreement. There are two main marketplaces: regulated and voluntary, each with distinct mechanisms for reducing emissions. Projects like blue carbon, carbon capture, energy transition, and land use offsets offer diverse ways to offset emissions and promote sustainability. Ethical standards are upheld by accrediting bodies like Verra, ensuring the effectiveness of carbon offset projects. Transparency, auditing, and continuous evolution are key for success in the carbon market, urging businesses to integrate carbon crediting into their sustainability strategies. #sustainability #climatechange #greentechnology #carboncrediting #carbonoffset

This month, I conducted an in-depth analysis of various guidelines concerning the incorporation of #carboncredits into companies' decarbonization strategies. After their announcement in early April, the Science Based Targets initiative became the latest guideline to join a general consensus stipulating the potential role of carbon credits in adressing unabated emissions after meeting interim decarbonization efforts and offsetting residual emissions through removals to achieve net-zero targets. Nevertheless, discrepancies exist among these guidelines regarding the use of carbon credits before fulfilling internal decarbonization efforts. Despite these variations, several key messages and recommendations emerge: 1. Urgent action is paramount. According to AlliedOffsets, over 80% of companies have not yet set climate targets, and those who have often fall short by 26% for Scope 1 and 2 and by 62% for Scope 3 emissions. Companies must not allow these minor discrepancy to hinder their engagement. Time is of the essence. 2. The use of high-quality carbon credits, "high-quality" defined by the Core Carbon Principles established by The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM), or similar standards, is not nor will it ever be #greenwashing when used as a complement to internal decarbonization efforts. This misconception needs to be addressed immediately. 3. Ideally, companies will consistently meet their interim decarbonization goals, necessitating carbon credits only for beyond-interim targets compensation and achieving net-zero. However, if interim targets are not being met, alignment with the Paris Agreement should guide decision-making rather than discrepancies between guidelines. In such cases, following the guidelines established by IETA and the VCMI (for Scope 3 emissions only), which permit interim target fulfillment through carbon credits, is advisable. 4. Finally, it's crucial to bear in mind: NGOs, project developers, local communities, indigenous populations, and other climate champions are unconcerned about discrepancies in guidelines. What they require is ongoing private engagement to sustain their climate action efforts. Let's actively support and empower them. For those interested in a comprehensive understanding, the full analysis can be accessed via the following link: https://lnkd.in/dfWcJksi

🫣 Latest Climate News: SBT plans to allow companies to use carbon offsets to address certain Scope 3 emissions. Really Science Based Targets initiative? This is a significant shift, bringing the concept of "environmental attribute certificates" into the equation. 💡 Traditionally, SBTi has emphasized the direct linkage of emissions cuts to a company's operations or supply chain partners. 💡 However, now the organization's board announced this groundbreaking decision, as departure from the conventional approach, signaling a 'more nuanced ' understanding of how corporations can contribute to emissions reduction. Why is this shift critical? 💡 For starters, it understates the complexities of Scope 3 emissions, which cannot simply be offsetted. They need to be traced back, understood and managed, if even or especially because, they are out of a company's immediate control. 💡 By allowing the use of 'environmental attribute certificates', SBTi reduces the responsibility of a company's total environmental footprint. 💡 Yes, direct emissions reductions is challenging to achieve - but this is the reality we live in. This flexibility opens up new avenues for greenwashing, under the label of carbon neutrality. Instead of taking #Scope3Action. This was just stated by the NewClimate Institute, which revealed in its 2024 report that existing Scope 3 reduction targets are already very weak. Summary? Yes, we need a more holistic approach to emissions management, one that recognizes the interconnectedness of global supply chains and the need for collective corporate action. This needs especially collaborate to work on emission reduction by switching to renewable energy, low carbon transport, circular product design etc. No more offseting, in my view. What are your thoughts? Andreas Maslo Yvonne Jamal Ada (Adanelly) Chávez Dr. Katharina Reuter Zsuzsanna Tajti PhD, CFA, FRM, PRM, CIA, SCR 🌱 Christine Mengelée

There's a lot to like about BCG's new Scaling CDR: Drivers for Durable Carbon Removal report. It clearly lays out the contours of a conversation about demand many of us are having in workshops and conferences and various CDR-focused spaces. https://lnkd.in/euZ_SxjD One thread that I want to pull on -- 📈 BCG estimates 6-10 Gt of residual emissions in 2050 (excluding land use), assuming all abatement less than $450/ton is achieved. ⬇️ They also estimate that we could get 0.5-2.5 Gt of durable removal from existing and proposed policies, primarily incorporation of durable CDR into carbon pricing schemes. 💰 This requires threading the needle on price: expensive enough to drive decarbonization, but not so expensive as to be unrealistic. 🔁 The policies in the report are still, more or less, operating under the ton-for-ton offsetting paradigm. (For ex, in an ETS, you can get 1 allowance by buying 1 ton of CDR, to compensate for 1 ton of emissions.) Which leaves me wondering: where is the remaining 3.5-9.5 Gt going to come from? And I'm not the only one. I've heard a lot of conversations recently -- at the Negative Emissions Conference in Oxford, London Climate Action Week, and elsewhere -- about policies "beyond offsetting." These are policies that generate net carbon removal without requiring the creation and tracking of tradable, ton-denominated credits. This is drawdown mode. We understand intuitively that offsetting is not the only policy driver for nature-based carbon removal. I don't think anyone is laboring under the assumption that converting every single tree in the world into a carbon credit is the best and only way to protect forests. Offsetting is just one (limited) tool in the toolkit. But I don't think we've really articulated what that could look like for durable/tech/engineered CDR. 1️⃣ Can we envision alternative supply-push and demand-pull policies for durable CDR? 2️⃣ Can we work with corporate voluntary buyers to identify and test "hidden" removals across industries, then leverage regulatory policy to turn novel ideas into norms? 3️⃣ Can we implement those policies with fit-for-purpose standards that prove carbon was actually removed from the atmosphere? Been spending a lot of time on these questions, with some of my favorite people in CDR. More soon!

Last week, the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) made waves by permitting companies to utilise carbon offsets to address their Scope 3 supply chain emissions. However, what unfolded next revealed a troubling gap in corporate governance: the decision behind this change was made unilaterally by the board and senior management, without consulting employees. The announcement has since been retracted, and SBTi’s internal conflict has taken centre stage in the debate over the role of carbon credits in corporate climate action. New guidance that includes carbon crediting is now expected in July, but the details are very unclear. Although many in the carbon space — including myself and the team at Klimate.co — are keen to see carbon offsets (especially carbon removal) included in official decarbonisation guidance, there need to be firm guardrails on the type and validity of credits included. Setting these boundaries relies on strong and cohesive leadership, and I hope the SBTi will be able to regain investors’ confidence after this incident. Fortunately, there have been many positive developments in terms of decarbonisation guidance and expansion to include carbon removal. To highlight one, the newly revised Oxford Offsetting Principles offer companies up-to-date guidance on how to invest in carbon removal as part of their net zero strategy (link in comments to read more). https://lnkd.in/dgsjGFYf