OFFSETS ON DEFENSE — The world's failure to get climate change under control and a call from the UN to do "everything, everywhere, all at once" would seem to be good news for those who are in the business of selling emissions reductions. We're in an "and world," as Barbara Harrison, vice president for offsets and emerging at Chevron New Energies, put it at this week's North American Carbon World conference in Los Angeles. So why do voluntary carbon markets — in which companies can purchase emissions reductions to augment their own efforts — feel so gloomy? They're cowering under a drumbeat of negative coverage and attacks from the left. A shattering Guardian article from January finding that Verra, the main third-party verifier of offset projects, might be overstating forestry projects' benefits by a huge amount cast a long shadow over the conference. Wednesday alone brought a new investigation from Die Zeit and a letter from environmental justice groups to EU regulators calling for them to eschew offsets. Carbon marketers say they're just fighting the good fight. "We can't let these Chicken Little critics impede action on climate change," said Craig Ebert, president of the Climate Action Reserve, the offset project registry that put on the conference. "They are letting perfect be the enemy of the good." The slings and arrows (along with macroeconomic trends like inflation and reduced energy consumption) are having an impact. The voluntary market was nearly flat last year, in part due to "fears of reputational risk from purchasing low-quality credits," BloombergNEF finds. Still, it projects the market could reach $1 trillion by 2037, driven by corporate net-zero goals. Offsets' perceived weaknesses are a business opportunity in themselves. Startups like Pachama, which uses satellites to continuously update estimates of forests' carbon content, and BeZero Carbon, which gives offset projects bond ratings, are capitalizing on the murkiness. And tech companies are muscling in with attempts to position carbon removals as an alternative to conventional offsets. "We know how sort of broken the legacy carbon markets are, and we know that we don't really just want to add higher-quality removals to this kind of broken structure," Steve Davis, head of climate science at Watershed, a corporate carbon accounting platform that also sells carbon removal, said earlier this week. Ouch. Market participants are trying to figure out how to take back the narrative. Upcoming standards from the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market, another third-party group, might help, or might cause more controversy. "We need to feel more confident. We are a very defensive-posture marketplace," said Keegan Eisenstadt, director for global nature-based solutions at South Pole, an offset project financier (which got its own damning investigation on Thursday from Bloomberg). "We need to say, 'No, no, no, we are doing good work here, we're trying to save the planet," he said to applause. "We need to be a little more bold and self-assured."
|
Comments
Post a Comment