Gold Standard’s Reaction to US Government's "Principles for High Integrity Carbon Markets" We welcome the “Voluntary Carbon Markets Joint Policy Statement and Principles” from the US Government, and the clear signal it sends in endorsing core integrity principles for Voluntary Carbon Markets (VCMs). This unified stance is a promising move towards ensuring that carbon markets to effectively contribute to global Net Zero and help spur real development impact. Gold Standard hopes that the US Government will build on this statement through further concrete steps to catalyse corporate climate action in line with planetary boundaries. While it’s important that the market continually increases in quality, we would welcome clarity that companies should take responsibility for their entire carbon footprint, including Scope 3 emissions, reducing in line with science, and supporting beyond value chain mitigation for what they have not yet abated. This clarity will help companies use the voluntary carbon market correctly, and to its full potential. The US Government would also be well placed to further facilitate efficient market participation and to invest in technologies and tools that can lower transaction costs, and expand carbon finance opportunities globally, not just within the US, in partnership with other governments that need finance to meet and exceed their nationally determined contributions. We look forward to collaborating with policymakers and market participants to ensure that carbon markets not only uphold high integrity standards but also encourage real, accountable, and comprehensive climate action that delivers a just transition. For the Voluntary Carbon Market to drive real impact it is important that it is used only where appropriate. Using it in the wrong way has the potential to divert resources away from more appropriate mechanisms, and opens it up to criticism from opponents. Companies must take responsibility for their unabated emission while reducing their footprint. If we work together to support them to do so the market will grow, without the need to rely on inappropriate use-cases. #VoluntaryCarbonMarkets #NetZero #ClimateAction #JustTransition #SustainableDevelopment https://ow.ly/aV9350S2fy3
Gold Standard’s Post
More Relevant Posts
-
Last week, the U.S. Government released the Joint Policy Statement and Principles on Voluntary Carbon Markets, recognising the role of the carbon market in accelerating climate action. This marks an important milestone showing the U.S. Government’s support for the carbon market and addressing the existing challenges in using carbon credits for corporate decarbonisation strategy. There are 7 principles, primarily focusing on: 1) Demand-side, with an emphasis on improving carbon credits’ quality, avoiding harm to the environment and communities, and delivering co-benefits to the program. 2) Supply-side, encouraging corporate buyers to prioritise emission reductions and to transparently communicate the nature of carbon credits purchased. 3) Market structure, to improve the market governance, interoperability of standards, and pricing transparency, among others. https://lnkd.in/gArPsdd3
US unveils policy to boost carbon offset market integrity
reuters.com
-
The U.S. government has unveiled new rules to enhance confidence in voluntary #carbonmarkets, aiming to boost their credibility and effectiveness. A joint policy statement was issued by the Treasury, Energy, and Agriculture Departments, alongside President Biden's top climate and economic advisers. The new principles aim to ensure: Real and quantifiable emissions reductions. Monitoring to avoid harm to local communities. Prioritizing decarbonization before purchasing credits. "Voluntary #carbonmarkets can unlock the power of private markets to reduce #emissions, but only if we address significant existing challenges," said Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. Initiatives from the Energy and Agriculture Departments, along with international programs like the Energy Transition Accelerator and LEAF coalition, aim to support high-integrity #carbon #offset projects. High-integrity #carboncredits are crucial for mobilising private finance and achieving climate targets. This aligns with principles from organisations like the Integrity Council for Voluntary Carbon Markets (ICVCM). #ClimateAction #Sustainability #CarbonCredits #VCMs #Decarbonization #PrivateFinance #EmissionsReduction
US unveils policy to boost carbon offset market integrity
reuters.com
-
Senior Leader | Nature, Climate & Sustainability | Director, Sayari Earth | Founder & Former CEO, BioCarbon Partners | 2022 Momentum 100 Global Top 10 Impact CEO
The announcement by the US Government endorsing the voluntary carbon market is momentous. It is a powerful market signal following in the wake of the #Symbiosis and Science Based Targets initiative announcements. 🦓Credibility is key and much work remains to be done to increase credibility in the carbon markets. The intent from market stakeholders is there and there is a wave of VCM 2.0 projects coming. 🐋 The US is the largest cumulative emitter in history and the world’s largest economy. As a US Citizen, I am both proud today and relieved to see this action. This move should speed up the transition and channel unprecedented funding to nature based carbon projects around the world. 🐘The US government policy provides guidelines and seeks to encourage participation and development of the voluntary carbon markets. Story at:
US unveils policy to boost carbon offset market integrity
reuters.com
-
The energy transition will take time, and most of all patience. Reduction is a key part in approaching climate change. When organizations take it seriously, you can see a dramatic change in emissions. Don't participate just because it's the new trend. However, it's what your employees, and what your customers want. A cleaner, better world.
I hear a lot of glib dismissal of cost considerations in the environmental community these days. As in, “who cares how much companies are paying to decarbonize, they caused this mess and they should pay to clean it up” and “anything we do to engage with fossil fuel companies gives them a license to pollute and “prolongs their life”. While I am sympathetic to this argument, it’s a dangerously counterproductive one if we’re actually interested in transitioning the global economy and delivering anywhere near the billions of tons of emissions reductions and trillions of dollars needed on an annual basis. As a crucial reminder about why the environmental community should very very much care about how much this transition costs- Larry Fink in his annual investment letter recently said: “that to ensure energy security while decarbonizing will extend the reliance on fossil fuels - “even the most climate-conscious among them saw that their long-term path to decarbonization will include hydrocarbons, albeit less of them, for some time to come.” This last point is the important one- we cannot wave a magic wand and remake the global economy in the next ten years. Believe me, I wish we could. The low carbon economy transition- if we’re actually going to succeed at it- is going to look a lot like various shades of brown to light green for a long long time to come. Our stubborn unwillingness to acknowledge the very real and dominant forces that *actually* drive business decision making in the real economy and the fact that the alternative for the vast majority of companies is to DO NOTHING, not to put themselves out of business voluntarily because “that’s what the science says” will doom us to losing the climate change war. The cost of this transition matters, A LOT. We need to start getting comfortable with the hard and uncomfortable compromises we’re all going to have to make in our ideology- FF interests and the far left NGOs especially- if we have a prayer of meeting global temperature goals. Cost matters, and that’s why cost containment and cost consideration cannot be dismissed as a “corporate talking point defending greenwashing practices”. That’s also why pricing the externality as comprehensively and as quickly as possible in as many parts of the globe as we possibly can is paramount. It’s why I refuse to give up on carbon markets. They work. They price carbon. They change business models. They contain and share more equitably the costs and benefits of the transition. Are they perfect? Nope. But they’re the best thing we have available today, so we need to make them work as well as we possibly can. The transition is necessarily going to messy, and incremental, and filled with setbacks. I’m ready to have a real conversation about what it’s going to take to transition the economy. It’s time for the “silent majority” to step up and start reclaiming the middle ground that is, in fact, our only viable path forward.
Larry Fink’s Annual Letter: “ESG” out, “Energy Pragmatism” In
esgandclimatenews.com
-
It's encouraging to see the US Government's view of the carbon markets align so closely with ours. Yes, there are legacy integrity and quality issues that we need to fix asap. But, carbon markets are one of the most established tools for channeling private sector capital to the multitude of emissions reduction and removal solutions that would otherwise go unfunded. And, critically, there are a raft of new initiatives, including better data, more transparency and independent oversight, working flat out to fix and scale high integrity, high impact carbon markets. We desperately need businesses to rapidly decarbonise their value chains AND to go further and fund (i) the protection and restoration of natural carbon sinks, and (ii) the scaling of nascent carbon removal technology. So it's great to see the US Government focusing on fixing the incentives and the mechanisms to deliver that funding. https://lnkd.in/gRV_MRNE
FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces New Principles for High-Integrity Voluntary Carbon Markets | The White House
whitehouse.gov
-
A very sober view of the state of the industry, its legitimate interests, and how we should all align behind (and pay for) the transition to a cleaner, greener future.
I hear a lot of glib dismissal of cost considerations in the environmental community these days. As in, “who cares how much companies are paying to decarbonize, they caused this mess and they should pay to clean it up” and “anything we do to engage with fossil fuel companies gives them a license to pollute and “prolongs their life”. While I am sympathetic to this argument, it’s a dangerously counterproductive one if we’re actually interested in transitioning the global economy and delivering anywhere near the billions of tons of emissions reductions and trillions of dollars needed on an annual basis. As a crucial reminder about why the environmental community should very very much care about how much this transition costs- Larry Fink in his annual investment letter recently said: “that to ensure energy security while decarbonizing will extend the reliance on fossil fuels - “even the most climate-conscious among them saw that their long-term path to decarbonization will include hydrocarbons, albeit less of them, for some time to come.” This last point is the important one- we cannot wave a magic wand and remake the global economy in the next ten years. Believe me, I wish we could. The low carbon economy transition- if we’re actually going to succeed at it- is going to look a lot like various shades of brown to light green for a long long time to come. Our stubborn unwillingness to acknowledge the very real and dominant forces that *actually* drive business decision making in the real economy and the fact that the alternative for the vast majority of companies is to DO NOTHING, not to put themselves out of business voluntarily because “that’s what the science says” will doom us to losing the climate change war. The cost of this transition matters, A LOT. We need to start getting comfortable with the hard and uncomfortable compromises we’re all going to have to make in our ideology- FF interests and the far left NGOs especially- if we have a prayer of meeting global temperature goals. Cost matters, and that’s why cost containment and cost consideration cannot be dismissed as a “corporate talking point defending greenwashing practices”. That’s also why pricing the externality as comprehensively and as quickly as possible in as many parts of the globe as we possibly can is paramount. It’s why I refuse to give up on carbon markets. They work. They price carbon. They change business models. They contain and share more equitably the costs and benefits of the transition. Are they perfect? Nope. But they’re the best thing we have available today, so we need to make them work as well as we possibly can. The transition is necessarily going to messy, and incremental, and filled with setbacks. I’m ready to have a real conversation about what it’s going to take to transition the economy. It’s time for the “silent majority” to step up and start reclaiming the middle ground that is, in fact, our only viable path forward.
Larry Fink’s Annual Letter: “ESG” out, “Energy Pragmatism” In
esgandclimatenews.com
-
I hear a lot of glib dismissal of cost considerations in the environmental community these days. As in, “who cares how much companies are paying to decarbonize, they caused this mess and they should pay to clean it up” and “anything we do to engage with fossil fuel companies gives them a license to pollute and “prolongs their life”. While I am sympathetic to this argument, it’s a dangerously counterproductive one if we’re actually interested in transitioning the global economy and delivering anywhere near the billions of tons of emissions reductions and trillions of dollars needed on an annual basis. As a crucial reminder about why the environmental community should very very much care about how much this transition costs- Larry Fink in his annual investment letter recently said: “that to ensure energy security while decarbonizing will extend the reliance on fossil fuels - “even the most climate-conscious among them saw that their long-term path to decarbonization will include hydrocarbons, albeit less of them, for some time to come.” This last point is the important one- we cannot wave a magic wand and remake the global economy in the next ten years. Believe me, I wish we could. The low carbon economy transition- if we’re actually going to succeed at it- is going to look a lot like various shades of brown to light green for a long long time to come. Our stubborn unwillingness to acknowledge the very real and dominant forces that *actually* drive business decision making in the real economy and the fact that the alternative for the vast majority of companies is to DO NOTHING, not to put themselves out of business voluntarily because “that’s what the science says” will doom us to losing the climate change war. The cost of this transition matters, A LOT. We need to start getting comfortable with the hard and uncomfortable compromises we’re all going to have to make in our ideology- FF interests and the far left NGOs especially- if we have a prayer of meeting global temperature goals. Cost matters, and that’s why cost containment and cost consideration cannot be dismissed as a “corporate talking point defending greenwashing practices”. That’s also why pricing the externality as comprehensively and as quickly as possible in as many parts of the globe as we possibly can is paramount. It’s why I refuse to give up on carbon markets. They work. They price carbon. They change business models. They contain and share more equitably the costs and benefits of the transition. Are they perfect? Nope. But they’re the best thing we have available today, so we need to make them work as well as we possibly can. The transition is necessarily going to messy, and incremental, and filled with setbacks. I’m ready to have a real conversation about what it’s going to take to transition the economy. It’s time for the “silent majority” to step up and start reclaiming the middle ground that is, in fact, our only viable path forward.
Larry Fink’s Annual Letter: “ESG” out, “Energy Pragmatism” In
esgandclimatenews.com
-
20+ years sustainable finance experience. Co-founder of Bloom Sustainability Advisors. We build scalable strategies that enable clients to achieve their ESG and net-zero ambitions.
Having worked sustainability since 2003 I have seen many labels for sustainability arrive, mature, get trashed - and then replaced. What is different this time is that the name doesn't really matter any more: - We rely on frameworks for identifying and measuring risk - Capital markets are better able to allocate capital based on non-financial factors - Re-insurance firms are better able to assessing physical climate risk using complex forecasting models - And emerging regulations that are moving companies to align their disclosures CSR > ESG > Energy Pragmatism. The name no longer matters. We have the processes - and they are getting better at rewarding good actors or discounting distressed assets. Thanks Alexia Kelly for sharing!
I hear a lot of glib dismissal of cost considerations in the environmental community these days. As in, “who cares how much companies are paying to decarbonize, they caused this mess and they should pay to clean it up” and “anything we do to engage with fossil fuel companies gives them a license to pollute and “prolongs their life”. While I am sympathetic to this argument, it’s a dangerously counterproductive one if we’re actually interested in transitioning the global economy and delivering anywhere near the billions of tons of emissions reductions and trillions of dollars needed on an annual basis. As a crucial reminder about why the environmental community should very very much care about how much this transition costs- Larry Fink in his annual investment letter recently said: “that to ensure energy security while decarbonizing will extend the reliance on fossil fuels - “even the most climate-conscious among them saw that their long-term path to decarbonization will include hydrocarbons, albeit less of them, for some time to come.” This last point is the important one- we cannot wave a magic wand and remake the global economy in the next ten years. Believe me, I wish we could. The low carbon economy transition- if we’re actually going to succeed at it- is going to look a lot like various shades of brown to light green for a long long time to come. Our stubborn unwillingness to acknowledge the very real and dominant forces that *actually* drive business decision making in the real economy and the fact that the alternative for the vast majority of companies is to DO NOTHING, not to put themselves out of business voluntarily because “that’s what the science says” will doom us to losing the climate change war. The cost of this transition matters, A LOT. We need to start getting comfortable with the hard and uncomfortable compromises we’re all going to have to make in our ideology- FF interests and the far left NGOs especially- if we have a prayer of meeting global temperature goals. Cost matters, and that’s why cost containment and cost consideration cannot be dismissed as a “corporate talking point defending greenwashing practices”. That’s also why pricing the externality as comprehensively and as quickly as possible in as many parts of the globe as we possibly can is paramount. It’s why I refuse to give up on carbon markets. They work. They price carbon. They change business models. They contain and share more equitably the costs and benefits of the transition. Are they perfect? Nope. But they’re the best thing we have available today, so we need to make them work as well as we possibly can. The transition is necessarily going to messy, and incremental, and filled with setbacks. I’m ready to have a real conversation about what it’s going to take to transition the economy. It’s time for the “silent majority” to step up and start reclaiming the middle ground that is, in fact, our only viable path forward.
Larry Fink’s Annual Letter: “ESG” out, “Energy Pragmatism” In
esgandclimatenews.com
-
🌟 Energy Transition Executive | Global Technical-Commercial Leader | Low Carbon Solutions Strategist (CCML™, PMP) | Executive Coach
Biden Administration Unveils Principles for Robust Voluntary Carbon Markets Key Points: The Biden-Harris Administration has released new principles to guide the development of high-integrity voluntary carbon markets (VCMs). These principles aim to ensure VCMs drive real, verifiable emissions reductions and avoid greenwashing. Key principles include ensuring credit integrity, prioritizing emissions reductions, enhancing transparency, and supporting environmental justice. The Administration is taking a whole-of-government approach, with various agencies contributing to VCM development and oversight. Context and Background: Voluntary carbon markets have gained traction as companies seek to offset emissions and meet sustainability goals. However, concerns have been raised about the credibility of some carbon credits and the need for robust standards. The Biden Administration recognizes the potential of high-quality VCMs to channel private capital towards decarbonization efforts while acknowledging the need for guardrails to ensure their integrity. In my view, the Administration's principles represent a crucial step in restoring confidence in voluntary carbon markets. By establishing clear guidelines and a coordinated approach, these principles can help unlock private capital for credible decarbonization projects while addressing greenwashing concerns. However, their success will depend on effective implementation, monitoring, and continuous improvement based on stakeholder feedback. What are your thoughts on the Biden Administration's principles for voluntary carbon markets? How can we ensure these principles are effectively implemented and enforced? Share your insights below, and let's continue the discussion on building robust and impactful carbon markets. Like and share if you found this valuable! #VoluntaryCarbonMarkets #ClimateAction #NetZero #CarbonCredits #Sustainability #BidenAdministration https://lnkd.in/drXGPNsW
FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces New Principles for High-Integrity Voluntary Carbon Markets | The White House
whitehouse.gov
-
A big thank you to Alexia Kelly for this excellent summary of the hard realities - and opportunities - of the energy transition. I especially liked her observation: “Cost matters, and that’s why cost containment and cost consideration cannot be dismissed as a “corporate talking point defending greenwashing practices”. That’s also why pricing the externality as comprehensively and as quickly as possible in as many parts of the globe as we possibly can is paramount. It’s why I refuse to give up on carbon markets. They work. They price carbon. They change business models. They contain and share more equitably the costs and benefits of the transition. " At BDC, we not only support Canadian SMEs in meeting the challenges and opportunities of a low carbon economy with our online tools, advice, and financing offers, we also invest capital into the innovative new companies that are accelerating the energy transition and making it more more affordable for everyone. https://www.bdc.ca/en #energytransition #lowcarboneconomy
I hear a lot of glib dismissal of cost considerations in the environmental community these days. As in, “who cares how much companies are paying to decarbonize, they caused this mess and they should pay to clean it up” and “anything we do to engage with fossil fuel companies gives them a license to pollute and “prolongs their life”. While I am sympathetic to this argument, it’s a dangerously counterproductive one if we’re actually interested in transitioning the global economy and delivering anywhere near the billions of tons of emissions reductions and trillions of dollars needed on an annual basis. As a crucial reminder about why the environmental community should very very much care about how much this transition costs- Larry Fink in his annual investment letter recently said: “that to ensure energy security while decarbonizing will extend the reliance on fossil fuels - “even the most climate-conscious among them saw that their long-term path to decarbonization will include hydrocarbons, albeit less of them, for some time to come.” This last point is the important one- we cannot wave a magic wand and remake the global economy in the next ten years. Believe me, I wish we could. The low carbon economy transition- if we’re actually going to succeed at it- is going to look a lot like various shades of brown to light green for a long long time to come. Our stubborn unwillingness to acknowledge the very real and dominant forces that *actually* drive business decision making in the real economy and the fact that the alternative for the vast majority of companies is to DO NOTHING, not to put themselves out of business voluntarily because “that’s what the science says” will doom us to losing the climate change war. The cost of this transition matters, A LOT. We need to start getting comfortable with the hard and uncomfortable compromises we’re all going to have to make in our ideology- FF interests and the far left NGOs especially- if we have a prayer of meeting global temperature goals. Cost matters, and that’s why cost containment and cost consideration cannot be dismissed as a “corporate talking point defending greenwashing practices”. That’s also why pricing the externality as comprehensively and as quickly as possible in as many parts of the globe as we possibly can is paramount. It’s why I refuse to give up on carbon markets. They work. They price carbon. They change business models. They contain and share more equitably the costs and benefits of the transition. Are they perfect? Nope. But they’re the best thing we have available today, so we need to make them work as well as we possibly can. The transition is necessarily going to messy, and incremental, and filled with setbacks. I’m ready to have a real conversation about what it’s going to take to transition the economy. It’s time for the “silent majority” to step up and start reclaiming the middle ground that is, in fact, our only viable path forward.
Larry Fink’s Annual Letter: “ESG” out, “Energy Pragmatism” In
esgandclimatenews.com
