Judit Langh’s Post

Ignore biased media telling you the carbon markets are failing. They are not. Media have limited access to key information by the most successful projects. These days it is often hard to distinguish between newspapers editorial lines and online trolls. Being active in the carbon markets, I spent the last year in disbelief at statements like "carbon markets are useless", "carbon prices are collapsing", etc. These normally came from (a) media and academia with ideological bias, and/or allegiance to oil nations that oppose carbon markets (e.g. Russia, Norway); (b) Rating agencies and 'climate tech' latecomers whose pitch was "the market is broken and you need us to fix it" ; and (c) when it came to REDD and NBS carbon, tech DAX firms whose credits are non viable below absurdly high prices. Meanwhile the high integrity companies we work with were securing areas, large scale financing and offtakes. We have seen billions worth of commitments. There have, however, been some problems showing the immaturity of the market: perhaps the greatest example is the massive overreaction by organisations like Verra, trying to appease critics who will listen to no reason (most criticisms came from organisations that openly state they want the VCM to fail). This quasi-puerile reaction has surely caused harm, making some excellent organisations waste time and resources addressing made up issues. Indeed the tactic of attacking a whole collective based on one example is perverse but common. I cringe in horror when racist media publish titles such as "Muslim man kills wife in Liverpool", linking the man's behaviour with his religion, because our brains are lazy and the prejudice is easy to plant. Conversely, media outlets (you know which ones) have often used this tactic to attack the whole nature based solutions carbon market. Because one developer did something unfair, the article implies all carbon projects are bad. Luckily, despite overreacting, markets are more intelligent than journalists and activists. When a solution adds value, it is adopted and capital flows to it. The carbon markets will grow enormously (projected 20x in the next two decades). It will not be all plain sailing. But it should be fun.

Deforestation and forest degradation is responsible for 11% greenhouse gas emissions, which is why this latest The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) decision is so important. These Core Carbon Principle (CCPs)-labelled REDD+ carbon credits will help to rebuild confidence in the integrity of forest carbon credits and help lead to increased private sector investment in nature-based solutions!

Absolutely, correct. Carbon credits may be imperfect but, are an evolving and essential pathway for complementary carbon action. A study of 4000 companies by Trove Research showed that Companies using carbon credits decarbonise twice as fast as those that do not use carbon credits.

I get a little triggered whenever I see environmental NGOs in the global north opposing carbon credits. After all, without carbon credits, we have no plan for forests, no plan for carbon removal, and we offer the global south what I call the Green Sh!tty deal, and it goes like this: The unstated expectation is that countries like Ecuador, where I live, should throttle their emissions while continuing to meet their populations' outstanding needs and aspirations. At the same time, they must protect their vast forests and mangroves, which deliver ecosystem services/benefits to the entire planet. They must do so for free, absorbing the costs of the global north's pollution-driven development. To boot, the country probably has an agreement with the IMF to enforce fiscal austerity, and it's likely dealing with some serious drug-fueled security issues along with illegal mining, which is driving deforestation and polluting waterways. Oh yeah, the global north demands minerals for its wind and solar projects and lithium for its batteries, but unless your government is anti-mining, frankly, your government is the enemy of the global environmental movement. If the green sh!tty deal makes you uncomfortable, it should. Solving climate change while enabling development is complex and includes some not-great trade-offs. Some might say the solution is for governments in the north to compensate governments in the south, but countries in the south know better than to pin their hopes on the arrival of that check. In Latin America, most school-aged children read Garcia Marquez's novella "El Coronel No Tiene Quien Quien Le Escriba", about an old man waiting to receive his military pension after heroically serving in a war. Spoiler alert: it never comes. Carbon credits represent an imperfect but evolving proposal for complementary climate action. When used correctly, high-quality carbon credits do not replace decarbonization efforts but instead are a means to take responsibility for emissions that are present today but won't be mitigated until tomorrow. That's why indigenous groups like the Peoples Forests Partnership (PFP) are urging SBTi to consider how to use credits to maximize decarbonization and regeneration. Too many environmental activists don't want to wrestle with the complexity of decarbonization or the unintended consequences of their policy stances. Instead, they prefer to hold signs, yell slogans, and expect others to figure out the details. They claim to speak for indigenous peoples, but they won't listen to them. So here's my suggestion: if you're an environmentalist publicly opposing climate action, consider whether you've got all the facts and are approaching the exercise with an open mind. Maybe try talking to someone who disagrees with you. If you're unswayed, propose an alternative. We must move on from environmentalism as only opposition toward environmentalism as proposition.

https://lnkd.in/d65J4kjt Sadly, low-integrity offset projects are the norm, not the exception. A 2023 investigation reviewed a broad swathe of rainforest protection projects and found that “94% of the credits had no benefit to the climate”. The issuer of carbon credits at the heart of the investigation has disputed its findings, but also announced it is introducing a new, “more consistent” methodology. Consider deforestation. The vast majority of dubious credits on the market today are issued by companies who pledge to protect forests from timber harvesting. These firms may use faulty baseline accounting practices to make claims that can mislead even the most well-meaning sustainability executives. For instance, credits are routinely issued on the promise of protecting forests that have already been designated for conservation in perpetuity."

Carbon Markets are broken - a 2023 investigation reviewed a broad swathe of rainforest protection projects and found that “94% of the credits had no benefit to the climate”. The issuer of carbon credits at the heart of the investigation has disputed its findings, but also announced it is introducing a new, “more consistent” methodology. Consider deforestation. The vast majority of dubious credits on the market today are issued by companies who pledge to protect forests from timber harvesting. These firms may use faulty baseline accounting practices to make claims that can mislead even the most well-meaning sustainability executives. For instance, credits are routinely issued on the promise of protecting forests that have already been designated for conservation in perpetuity. https://lnkd.in/eDFEwuen

What a whirlwind #COP29 in #Baku 🇦🇿! This year marked a professional and personal milestone for me—not only was it my first COP as the Carbon Verification Lead at Arbonics, but I also had the honor of representing the Dominican Republic in negotiations on #Article6 of the #ParisAgreement (which establishes a framework for countries to voluntarily cooperate to achieve #climate goals through three different approaches: country-country #carbontrading (Art. 6.2): a centrally governed UNFCCC mechanism for carbon trading (Art. 6.4); and non-market approaches (Art. 6.8)) After nearly a decade of intense discussions, countries finally reached a breakthrough, adopting long-awaited accounting rules that unlock the potential of #carbonmarkets for global climate action. In my latest blog, I explore how #Arbonics is advancing impactful climate solutions by aligning with these historic outcomes. Read more to learn how we’re turning #ambition into #action! https://lnkd.in/dyUPv9fk

🌍 Navigating the Green Tide: The Controversy of Carbon Removal Certificates 🍃 In a groundbreaking move, the EU's new Carbon Removals Certification Framework (#crcf) aims to foster #privateinvestment in #carbonremoval, enhancing #climate #integrity and combating #greenwashing. Yet, this initiative has sparked a debate. Conservationists express concerns that the framework may not adequately #protect #forests and could inadvertently support corporate greenwashing by commodifying #carbonremovals. As the EU strides towards its ambitious #climatetargets, the balance between #innovation and #environmentalpreservation remains delicate. This development signals a pivotal moment in our journey towards a more #sustainablefuture, highlighting the need for vigilance in ensuring that #greensolutions truly contribute to #environmentalconservation. 📄 Read the full article here https://lnkd.in/gUd4imQY

The Australian system is a bit of a shambles, with the emphasis on the sham portion. The most popular technique used to create offsets in Australia, known as human-induced regeneration, was supposed to regenerate scrubby outback forests.  However, the study found that it had mostly not improved tree cover as promised between about 2015 and 2022. The study analysed 182 projects in arid and semidesert areas and found forest cover had either barely grown or gone backwards in nearly 80% of these projects. This means these projects were not reducing emissions as promised, and polluting companies that bought offsets created through these projects were often not reducing their impact on the climate as they claimed. Australia’s forest regeneration method is the world’s fifth-biggest nature-based offsets programme, with projects covering nearly 42 million hectares, an area larger than Japan. More than 42 million carbon credits –worth between US$750 million and US$1 billion – have been issued for these projects. The researchers found there was nowhere near the forest cover, given the number of carbon credits issued.   This study adds to the growing scientific literature that highlights the practical limitations of offsets and the potential for offset schemes to credit abatement that is non-existent, non-additional, and potentially impermanent.  It raises serious questions about the effectiveness of Australia’s carbon credits system in addressing the climate crisis. The researchers examined 75 projects that they said, based on the number of credits they received, should have had near 100% forest cover. However, they found the actual coverage in 2022 was only 21%. This was only a 1.8% increase since the projects were registered. This is one of the most egregious cases of greenwashing, and further proof that the voluntary market is not working. Terence Nunis Terence K. J. Nunis, Consultant President, Red Sycamore Global

Carbon Markets: A New Opportunity for Global Climate Action The recent climate summit in Azerbaijan marked a turning point: the establishment of a globally regulated carbon credit market under UN oversight. This system aims to bring transparency and credibility, addressing flaws like greenwashing and unreliable offsets in voluntary markets. 💡 The promise: - A tool for high-emission industries to transition more sustainably. - Funding for climate projects in developing nations. Yet, Dutch companies remain skeptical. Giants like ING have stepped away from carbon credits, prioritizing direct emission reductions instead. Others, like Heineken and Unilever, emphasize using offsets as a last resort, raising doubts about whether this new system can avoid past pitfalls. 🌳 For innovators like Carbify, this is an opportunity to lead. With its focus on high-quality, verifiable carbon debits linked to sustainable forestry, Carbify is ready to bridge the trust gap. By aligning with the UN's framework, it sets a benchmark for businesses seeking meaningful climate solutions. What’s at stake? The success of this market depends on strict standards, robust oversight, and a commitment to real climate benefits. Companies must find the balance between innovation, compliance, and measurable impact to truly shape a sustainable future. Let’s set the bar higher. Together, we can turn carbon markets into a tool for real change. 🌎 #ClimateAction #CarbonMarkets #Sustainability #Innovation #Carbify