Nathan Truitt’s Post

"The State’s primary duty is to adopt, and to effectively apply in practice, regulations and measures capable of mitigating the existing and potentially irreversible, future effects of climate change. This obligation flows from the causal relationship between climate change and the enjoyment of Convention rights (...). In line with the international commitments undertaken by the member States, most notably under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, and the cogent scientific evidence provided, in particular, by the IPCC, the Contracting States need to put in place the necessary regulations and measures aimed at preventing an increase in GHG concentrations in the Earth’s atmosphere and a rise in global average temperature beyond levels capable of producing serious and irreversible adverse effects on human rights, notably the right to private and family life and home under Article 8 of the Convention (...). In order for this to be genuinely feasible, and to avoid a disproportionate burden on future generations, immediate action needs to be taken and adequate intermediate reduction goals must be set for the period leading to net neutrality. Such measures should, in the first place, be incorporated into a binding regulatory framework at the national level, followed by adequate implementation. (...) When assessing whether a State has remained within its margin of appreciation (...), the Court will examine whether the competent domestic authorities, be it at the legislative, executive or judicial level, have had due regard to the need to: (a) adopt general measures specifying a target timeline for achieving carbon neutrality and the overall remaining carbon budget for the same time frame, or another equivalent method of quantification of future GHG emissions, in line with the overarching goal for national and/or global climate-change mitigation commitments; (b) set out intermediate GHG emissions reduction targets and pathways (by sector or other relevant methodologies) that are deemed capable, in principle, of meeting the overall national GHG reduction goals within the relevant time frames undertaken in national policies; (c) provide evidence showing whether they have duly complied, or are in the process of complying, with the relevant GHG reduction targets (see sub-paragraphs (a)‑(b) above); (d) keep the relevant GHG reduction targets updated with due diligence, and based on the best available evidence; and (e) act in good time and in an appropriate and consistent manner when devising and implementing the relevant legislation and measures".

The Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) positioned itself as *the* standard for emissions reduction. It aims to help businesses set reduction targets in a "science based" way. But its reputation has taken a bruising this summer. Till now, it's been wildly successful and influential, despite concerns from some climate advocates about its approach. The U.S. Government even has proposed rules that mandate federal contractors set SBTi targets. SBTi aims to be guided by science. This claim offers a sense of clarity -- science is truth and who doesn't want truth? But its approach can belie the complexity of overlaying still-developing science on top of the entire global economy. And that not all scientists agree, especially when the science leaves the lab and hits the real world. The tensions in SBTi's mission came to a head this April, when SBTi's board said companies could use carbon offsets to meet Scope 3 commitments. There was a staff rebellion and public outcry, leading to the resignation of SBTi's CEO earlier this month. But the matter wasn't settled. Today, SBTi did itself no favors. It released new research that led to muddled headlines like this one from Reuters: "Corporate climate watchdog keeps lid on buying carbon offsets to meet climate targets." What? Basically, SBTi said it looked to the science for guidance--but the science was not yet clear, so it's holding on conclusions. The outcome is that SBTi's new corporate guidance won't be finalized till at least the end of 2025. Meanwhile, the world is moving on, governments are putting reporting requirements in place, and companies are doing their thing. This is unfortunate, because clarity *would* be good and leadership *is* needed. What are your reactions to SBTi's release?

Historical climate judgment at European level today ! Some punchlines from this 313-pages decision (link in comment): "519.  Drawing on the above considerations, and having regard to the causal relationship between State actions and/or omissions relating to climate change and the harm, or risk of harm, affecting individuals (see paragraphs 435, 436 and 478 above), Article 8 [Right to respect for private and family life] 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." "542. Having regard, in particular, to the scientific evidence as regards the manner in which climate change affects Convention rights, and taking into account the scientific evidence regarding the urgency of combating the adverse effects of climate change, the severity of its consequences, including the grave risk of their reaching the point of irreversibility, and the scientific, political and judicial recognition of a link between the adverse effects of climate change and the enjoyment of (various aspects of) human rights (see paragraph 436 above), the Court finds it justified to consider that 𝙘𝙡𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙘𝙖𝙧𝙧𝙮 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙬𝙚𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙚𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜-𝙪𝙥 𝙤𝙛 𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨. (...)" "543. Taking as a starting-point the principle that States must enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in this area, the above considerations entail a distinction between the scope of the margin as regards, on the one hand, the State’s commitment to the necessity of combating climate change and its adverse effects, and the setting of the requisite aims and objectives in this respect, and, on the other hand, the choice of means designed to achieve those objectives. (...) As regards the latter aspect, namely their 𝙘𝙝𝙤𝙞𝙘𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙣𝙨, including operational choices and policies adopted in order to meet internationally anchored targets and commitments in the light of priorities and resources, the States should be accorded a 𝙬𝙞𝙙𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙧𝙜𝙞𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣."

🌍 Navigating the way to effective carbon market mechanisms 🌍 Recent decisions under Articles 6.2 and 6.4 of the Paris Agreement bring both opportunities and challenges to the forefront of global climate action. These mechanisms are central to fostering international cooperation and achieving ambitious climate goals. However, as noted in the CMA discussions: Evolving Frameworks: The groundwork laid so far provides a structural framework, but the critical task of populating it with robust methodologies and standards remains. This is a critical moment for stakeholders to ensure high environmental integrity while maintaining simplicity and clarity in implementation. Inclusivity of expertise: The emphasis on integrating diverse scientific and technical expertise - including input from local communities and indigenous peoples - is a commendable step. Broadening this collaboration will strengthen both the credibility and applicability of the mechanisms. Balancing innovation with stability: Regulatory stability is critical to building trust among stakeholders. However, continuous improvement based on science and operational experience is also essential. Striking this balance will be key to the success of these mechanisms. Transparency and accountability: As highlighted above, the need for clear timelines and consistent permitting processes across countries cannot be overstated. This is particularly important to avoid retrospective assessments that could undermine confidence in the system. Practical challenges ahead: Given the immense amount of work still required to operationalise Article 6.4 and the high barriers to participation, it is likely that Article 6.2 will become the most widely used mechanism. Alternatively, Article 6.4 will need to adopt more grounded and accessible requirements to support broader engagement. As a professional deeply engaged in these global processes, I am optimistic about the potential of Articles 6.2 and 6.4 to unlock scalable climate solutions. But the road ahead will require hard work, innovative thinking and a commitment to equity and transparency. 💡 How do you see the evolving role of carbon markets in accelerating climate action? Share your thoughts below! 👇

IS IMPACT OUT OF SCOPE? According to leading scientists, the primary barrier to climate action is often linked to political and economic factors, particularly the influence of the fossil fuel industries and others with vested interests in the status quo. To change the playing field, responsible companies have a unique role to play. Therefore, it is also super exciting to see this new piece of research calling for climate standards to better capture the impact of corporate lobbying, investment, and product development activities. ▶️ Product power ▶️ Purchasing power ▶️ Political power It’s time to reward corporate actions that embrace systemic change via the above spheres of influence, says the authors. https://lnkd.in/dbvUDPa6

Issues around Scope 3 have appropriately gotten a lot of attention lately. Roger’s paper helps shine light on problems with Scope 3 accounting and how we might make it better -- for companies and the climate. We recommend giving it a read!

A very timely article from Roger Ballentine - making the case that the rules and expectations for Scope 3 emissions should focus more squarely on incentivising, enabling and optimising actual beneficial climate impact - including by enabling market-based approaches. Absolutely!

The Carbon Offsets Clash: Voices Battle Over Verification Standards Summary: - The Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), a prominent verifier of corporate climate goals, faced pressure to relax standards for carbon offsets. - At a recent London gathering, advocates aimed to make a case that SBTi's rigorous criteria impede the growth of the $2 billion carbon offsets market. - Critics argue that SBTi's rules undermine the credibility of offsets, while supporters believe easing standards would unlock more investment. - The debate reflects broader tensions around offsets' role in companies' net-zero strategies and concerns over greenwashing. Importance and Context: - Carbon offsets have become a crucial tool for companies seeking to reduce their carbon footprint and meet climate commitments. - However, the integrity and credibility of offsets have faced scrutiny amid concerns over their effectiveness and potential for greenwashing. - The SBTi's standards are seen as a benchmark for corporate climate targets, influencing offset market's development. - The controversy highlights the ongoing challenge of balancing climate action with robust environmental integrity as the transition accelerates. In my view, the debate surrounding SBTi's offset standards underscores the complexities and tensions within the rapidly evolving carbon markets. While easing verification criteria could unlock more investment, it risks undermining offsets' credibility and perpetuating greenwashing concerns. A balanced approach that maintains robust standards while incentivising genuine emissions reductions is crucial. Perhaps a middle ground involving incremental adjustments informed by stakeholder input could be explored. What are your thoughts on this issue? How can we ensure offsets truly contribute to decarbonisation while enabling scalable climate finance? Share your perspectives below, and tag colleagues who may find this topic interesting. #CarbonOffsets #NetZero #ClimateAction #EnvironmentalIntegrity https://lnkd.in/dNjG8P2N

According to a study by the Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE and the MIT Sloan School of Management engagement by financial institutions can affect corporate policies when a feasible request to setting a science-based climate target is combined with a credible threat of being excluded in climate benchmarks provided by an index provider. The study reports results from a pre-registered field experiment about the impact of index provider engagement on corporate climate policy. A randomly chosen group of 300 out of 1227 international companies received a letter from an index provider, encouraging the company to commit to setting a science-based climate target to remain included in its climate transition benchmark indices. After one year, the study observed a significant effect: 21.0% of treated companies have committed, vs. 15.7% in the control group. Thanks to authors Florian Heeb and Julian Kölbel #ESG #climatechange #ESGratings #sustainability #finance