Scarlett Benson’s Post

Thx Alexia for the very clear insight. Totally agree that SBTi is helpful, but only in a limited way given it does not provide clear incentives for companies to do BVCM.  What is the answer, though? Does the VCMI claims guidance provide this incentive? 

The recent debate with respect to the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) reflects a broader struggle between practical progress and ambitious climate goals. As companies navigate new regulations, Scope 3 emissions, and the rise of energy-intensive technologies, the tension between achieving meaningful emissions reductions and adapting to evolving challenges intensifies. This "dilemma decade" calls for a nuanced approach, integrating bold targets with actionable steps to meet climate science imperatives.

The public battle over the direction of the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) is unfolding amidst two competing realities: steady business progress on the one hand, and the need for more profound change based on what climate science tells us is needed on the other. BSR President and CEO Aron Cramer explores the fundamental question behind this debate and discusses the tradeoffs companies face in this current context. #governance #regulatoryaffairs #sbti #sustainabilityreporting #scope3 https://lnkd.in/eQHK3U8C

In April 2024, top scientists and carbon experts convened at Yale to tackle the challenges of improving nature-based carbon crediting. Despite unresolved technical debates, they agreed on one crucial point: scaling carbon credits is essential to meet climate goals. They proposed five guiding principles—urgency, practicality, science-based methods, adaptability, and accountability—to ensure that this vital tool evolves responsibly and effectively. https://lnkd.in/eiTDy_3c

South Pole CEO Dr. Daniel Klier recently discussed the challenges in the SBTi’s recent discussion papers with Reuters's Simon Jessop: “The fact (SBTi officials) say we may get some clarity in 2025 is a major problem, because that means there's probably a year without investment in nature and carbon removals. Nobody will do anything until they have guidelines.” SBTi’s latest Scope 3 discussion paper presents five potential scenarios for using commodity certificates in corporate mitigation strategies, which South Pole welcomes. We need to explore all possible levers to accelerate climate action. Delaying final guidance until 2025, however, creates uncertainty and risks stifling climate finance flows — which, in turn, could jeopardize our collective ability to meet critical climate goals. We need to broaden, not narrow, the path for companies to reach net zero by having a range of tools at their disposal. Carbon markets have great potential to cost-effectively channel finance to clean technologies, protecting nature, fair transitions, and global emission reductions. It’s time we scale them instead of stalling them. 👉 Read the full piece here: https://lnkd.in/efqfp6sA #NetZero #ClimateAction #Sustainability #STBi

South Pole Pole CEO Dr. Daniel Klier rightly highlights the risks of delaying carbon market climate action guidelines until 2025. The delay is more than just a challenge—it's a threat to communities and ecosystems that rely on immediate action. Uncertainty in carbon markets can stifle crucial investments in nature-based solutions. Every moment counts in the fight against climate change. Let’s not wait for the perfect plan—let’s act now to protect our planet and empower our communities. The time to scale carbon markets is now. Let's push forward, not stall! #NetZero #ClimateAction #Sustainability

Read my new op-ed in Reuters, co-authored with Mandy Rambharos, Vice President, Global Climate Cooperation at Environmental Defense Fund on Science Based Targets initiative’s proposal to recognize carbon credits. We outline why the potential for SBTi to update the scope 3 guidance and their Net Zero Standard marks a significant milestone in the global battle against climate change. As we set out in the article, one of the most significant challenges companies face in delivering on their science-based targets lies in how they estimate emissions, set targets, and demonstrate progress towards cutting so-called 'Scope 3 emissions'. These emissions, from suppliers and the use of products, are on average 11 times higher than a company’s direct emissions and are the most critical factor in determining whether a company reaches its target.     However, more than 94% of companies currently use generic spend-based emission factors to estimate their Scope 3 emissions. In practice, this makes it nearly impossible for the current system to effectively measure and reward companies for the direct impact of their investments to reduce value-chain emissions. In a time when action on climate is paramount, entrenching ourselves in a system that fails to recognize immediate action makes little sense. We need mechanisms that incentivize action and reward progress in real-time.    Read the full op-ed in Reuters: https://lnkd.in/dC-p5JJJ 

Carbon credits help to monetise cost-effective action to deliver net zero, but they are not properly recognised in emissions reporting in the time frame needed. María at We Mean Business Coalition and Mandy at Environmental Defense Fund scribed the timely Reuters op-ed on Science Based Targets initiative below. I share their view that the time has arrived for high quality credits (with guardrails) to be recognised by voluntary target and reporting initiatives. Let’s incentivise a multi-trillion dollar race to the top. #carboncredits #sbti #netzero #climateaction

Our new Sheffield Institute of Social Sciences is stuffed with nationally and internationally recognised leaders in the social science of people, place and space. As we build our external profile for our Institute, we will start by sharing public facing, expert musings from our team. This useful blog has been written by Dr Niall Gandy from our talented Climate, Sustainability and Environmental Management team to help us all understand what COP29 is and what it achieved. It is one of the clearest and more accessible reviews of COP29 I have read so far. https://lnkd.in/eJjWSDMp

I continue to be flabbergasted at the response to the Science Based Targets initiative's announcement last week. It's worth taking a moment to read, again, what they said. Here's the operative statement: "SBTi recognizes that, when properly supported by policies, standards and procedures based on scientific evidence, the use of environmental attribute certificates for abatement purposes on Scope 3 emissions could function as an additional tool to tackle climate change." This is hardly the unambiguous endorsement of carbon markets it's being painted to be. If we want to claim to make decisions based on science, we have to adhere to the most basic principles of science, one of which is to avoid leaping to conclusions ahead of both the collection of data and its analysis. Read the above quotation again - that's the "data" we have to base conclusions on. Now look at some of the conclusions people are leaping to: "The move was a corporate takeover of SBTi that will undermine any 'science-based' credibility they had." "This 'wild move' is an attempt to keep the business model [of offsets] alive, it's not an attempt to save the climate." "[The decision] renders the standard for climate action meaningless." None of the people who made these quotations has seen the actual proposal that will result from the board's announcement - not the system it sets up, not the safeguards it puts in place, not the scope of emissions it might effect, not the considerations it will be based on. They are reaching conclusions far, far, far ahead of the data. I know we live in an era of hot takes and instant outrage, but even by our own dismal standards of civility this response has been remarkable. Please, everyone, just hold some mental space that your initial, knee-jerk response to this announcement and what it MIGHT mean could - COULD - be incorrect.