Human | Founder of Liquid of Life | Clean Water Crusader | Water Technology, Water Assessments | Climate Awareness & Sustainability | Driven to Make a Positive Impact
The recent developments surrounding the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), particularly highlighted by the latest Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor and the SBTi Board’s controversial endorsement of Scope 3 carbon credits, demand our immediate attention and reflection. These actions not only raise serious questions about the alignment of SBTi's policies with scientific consensus and necessary climate action but also underscore a troubling pattern of decision-making that lacks transparency and broad stakeholder consultation. It's concerning to hear reports of significant internal disagreement within the SBTi itself, including the Board's decision-making process and the apparent exclusion of the Technical Council and Technical Advisory Group from critical policy shifts. Such steps seem to diverge from the foundational principles of evidence-based decision-making and inclusive dialogue, essential for the credibility and effectiveness of any organization striving to lead on climate action. This moment could indeed be seen as a tipping point in how the broader community perceives SBTi's legitimacy and commitment to facilitating the urgent, science-aligned corporate action our planet desperately needs. The departure of members from the Technical Advisory Group in protest and the call for transparency and accountability are clear indicators of the depth of concern among those closely involved. As someone deeply invested in the integrity and success of climate action frameworks, my hope is that this moment serves as a catalyst for SBTi to reevaluate its approaches, enhance transparency, and realign with the scientific rigour and stakeholder inclusivity necessary for its mission. It's a pivotal time for introspection, not just for SBTi but for all stakeholders involved in the collective endeavour of addressing climate change. Let's advocate for and contribute to a course correction that brings SBTi's actions back in line with its vital global responsibility
We may look back on 9 April 2024 as a tipping point in perception of the (il)legitimacy of the Science Based Targets initiative, with the dual shit-show yesterday of 1) the release of the 3rd annual Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor by NewClimate Institute & Carbon Market Watch; and 2) the SBTi Board Statement greenlighting Scope 3 carbon credits (& other environmental attribute certificates). The former is actually just an extension of the previous 2 annual reports, documenting evidence of a significant mismatch between SBTi-validated company targets, and what the science says is actually necessary. https://lnkd.in/esnT9PkA The latter is far more damning, as it diverges significantly from scientific consensus -- and common sense. https://lnkd.in/esGAX_iT My understanding is that at least one member of the SBTi Board vehemently opposed the policy position shift (that seem to cater to SBTi's clients more than to its global rightsholders) -- but was obviously overridden Even more concerning, I understand that neither the Technical Council (TC) nor the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) were consulted on this radical policy shift -- which seems to contravene the TC Terms of Reference, requiring that the TC assesses all major policy decisions. My understanding is that at least one TAG member has already resigned in protest, and another TAG member is pressing SBTi hard for explanations. Stepping back, all of this is utterly unsurprising, as it fits into the larger patterns of SBTi's unethical actions. SBTi has a well established pattern of taking steps without disclosing the underlying evidence and analysis that would form the scientific basis for the step. In the absence of such evidence, it is literally impossible to independently verify if SBTi's decisions are scientifically valid (or not). This instance repeats this pattern. So from where I sit, SBTi's incompetent / insidious actions seem to continue to shoot itself in the foot, in ways that simultaneously shoot humanity in the heart. I was asked by a journalist today if I had any hopes that SBTi might change. I told them that I wish dearly that SBTi would change, and step into integrity, but that I have absolutely no evidence upon which to base this hope. All of the evidence I see is that SBTi is working in ways that, some day, may be found in a court of law to be crimes against humanity for knowingly obstructing the most robust actions to counteract the worst effects of climate change. The only silver lining here is that others seem to be waking up to SBTi's unethical actions, so perhaps a tipping point may not be too far away...
