Simon Green’s Post

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."

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.

𝙈𝙖𝙧𝙠𝙚𝙩 𝙑𝙖𝙡𝙪𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝘾𝙖𝙧𝙗𝙤𝙣 𝙊𝙛𝙛𝙨𝙚𝙩𝙨 𝘿𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙨 61% 𝙞𝙣 2023 The carbon offset market experienced a significant decline in 2023, falling from $1.9 billion in 2022 to $723 million, a 61% drop, according to a report by Ecosystem Marketplace. This contraction follows reports revealing many carbon offset schemes are ineffective in mitigating the climate crisis and biodiversity loss, with some linked to human rights concerns. 𝑲𝒆𝒚 𝒇𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒔: Offsets from rainforest protection schemes, the most popular type, lost 62% of their value. Investigations, including one by The Guardian, found that over 90% of sampled rainforest carbon offsets from Verra, the leading certifier, are worthless. Calls for urgent reform to ensure carbon markets work as intended and to prevent greenwashing. Despite the market's challenges, industry leaders and policymakers emphasize the need for a reformed and effective carbon market. The White House recently supported industry-led efforts to reform carbon markets, aiming to ensure that credits represent actual environmental impact. Stephen Lezak from Oxford’s Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment urged action, likening the current market to a burning building that needs firefighters, not abandonment. Reform is critical to maintaining relevance and effectiveness in the fight against climate change. #CarbonOffsets #ClimateChange #EnvironmentalImpact #Sustainability #CarbonMarketReform https://lnkd.in/gY69w8U2

Protecting & restoring nature could provide at least 20% of the emission reductions needed to stabilize global climate. It's also among the most cost-effective ways to do it. But investment in nature needs to almost triple to reach climate targets by 2030.

The voluntary carbon credit market gets a lot of attention, however it's much smaller compared to the regulated market. Regulated markets involve government programs that enforce pollution limits and create a market for pollution permits. These markets are substantial, worth about a trillion dollars annually and covering a quarter of global emissions. On the other hand, voluntary markets are smaller, valued at about two billion dollars. https://lnkd.in/efpcp_jn #greentech #carbonfootprint #climatechange #sustainability #renewableenergy #globalwarming #environment #circulareconomy #sustainable #carbon #sequestration #carbondeveloper #carbonproject #carboncredit #paulownia #trees #naturebased #bioeconomy #solutions #kiri #empresstree

Extremely glad that the The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) has now approved methodologies for #REDD+. I sincerely hope this will remove the barrière for buyers of carbon credits to (also) purchase avoidance credits as it makes no sense to invest in CDR's while at the same time forests are being cut down. #ReduceAndInvest #Nature #Biodiversity #NaturalClimateSolutions REDD+ Business Initiative Natural Climate Solutions Alliance

🌲 Why the UN-Operated Carbon Market Will Have a Major Impact on Forests 🌍 As global leaders prepare for COP29 in Baku, the discussion around a UN-operated international carbon credit market is gaining momentum. This initiative could redefine how countries manage their forest resources and trade carbon credits, with significant sustainability and climate action implications. 🔎 What You Need to Know: 1️⃣ Establishing Standards: Negotiators are working to create standardised methodologies for carbon credit trading, which could facilitate a more robust and transparent market. Critical discussions will focus on the methodology for developing projects under the Paris Agreement and the requirements for greenhouse gas removal activities. 2️⃣ Diverging Approaches: The push for a new carbon market has sparked debate between the US and EU regarding its structure. While the US favours a more flexible approach driven by the private sector, the EU advocates for stricter regulations and compliance frameworks to ensure environmental and human rights protections. 3️⃣ Impact on Forest Management: Establishing an international carbon market could significantly influence global forest markets. Concerns exist that the EU's preference for natural restoration projects may exclude plantation forests from the market, potentially disadvantaging countries that have invested heavily in planted forests. 🔗 To explore the details of the upcoming discussions and their potential impact on forests, read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/gqgsF9G8 🗣️ #questionforgroup: How can we ensure that the new UN-operated carbon market supports climate goals and the diverse needs of countries with varying forest management practices? What strategies should be implemented to balance conservation efforts with economic interests? #carbonmarkets #carbon #un #cop28 #cop29 #sustainability #forestry #climate #climateaction #woodcentral #woodcentralau1

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

🌲 Why the UN-Operated Carbon Market Will Have a Major Impact on Forests 🌍 As global leaders prepare for COP29 in Baku, the discussion around a UN-operated international carbon credit market is gaining momentum. This initiative could redefine how countries manage their forest resources and trade carbon credits, with significant sustainability and climate action implications. 🔎 What You Need to Know: 1️⃣ Establishing Standards: Negotiators are working to create standardised methodologies for carbon credit trading, which could facilitate a more robust and transparent market. Critical discussions will focus on the methodology for developing projects under the Paris Agreement and the requirements for greenhouse gas removal activities. 2️⃣ Diverging Approaches: The push for a new carbon market has sparked debate between the US and EU regarding its structure. While the US favours a more flexible approach driven by the private sector, the EU advocates for stricter regulations and compliance frameworks to ensure environmental and human rights protections. 3️⃣ Impact on Forest Management: Establishing an international carbon market could significantly influence global forest markets. Concerns exist that the EU's preference for natural restoration projects may exclude plantation forests from the market, potentially disadvantaging countries that have invested heavily in planted forests. 🔗 To explore the details of the upcoming discussions and their potential impact on forests, read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/gRZBnZjT 🗣️ #questionforgroup: How can we ensure that the new UN-operated carbon market supports climate goals and the diverse needs of countries with varying forest management practices? What strategies should be implemented to balance conservation efforts with economic interests? #carbonmarkets #carbon #un #cop28 #cop29 #sustainability #forestry #climate #climateaction #woodcentral #woodcentralau1

🌲 Why the UN-Operated Carbon Market Will Have a Major Impact on Forests 🌍 As global leaders prepare for COP29 in Baku, the discussion around a UN-operated international carbon credit market is gaining momentum. This initiative could redefine how countries manage their forest resources and trade carbon credits, with significant sustainability and climate action implications. 🔎 What You Need to Know: 1️⃣ Establishing Standards: Negotiators are working to create standardised methodologies for carbon credit trading, which could facilitate a more robust and transparent market. Critical discussions will focus on the methodology for developing projects under the Paris Agreement and the requirements for greenhouse gas removal activities. 2️⃣ Diverging Approaches: The push for a new carbon market has sparked debate between the US and EU regarding its structure. While the US favours a more flexible approach driven by the private sector, the EU advocates for stricter regulations and compliance frameworks to ensure environmental and human rights protections. 3️⃣ Impact on Forest Management: Establishing an international carbon market could significantly influence global forest markets. Concerns exist that the EU's preference for natural restoration projects may exclude plantation forests from the market, potentially disadvantaging countries that have invested heavily in planted forests. 🔗 To explore the details of the upcoming discussions and their potential impact on forests, read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/g-pCC5p9 🗣️ #questionforgroup: How can we ensure that the new UN-operated carbon market supports climate goals and the diverse needs of countries with varying forest management practices? What strategies should be implemented to balance conservation efforts with economic interests? #carbonmarkets #carbon #un #cop28 #cop29 #sustainability #forestry #climate #climateaction #woodcentral #woodcentralau1