Ever since the board of SBTi announced in April that they will allow offsets to meet GHG goals, companies and climate solution stakeholders have been on a roller coaster of possible climate futures, with real implications for how easy or difficult it will be to achieve a science-based target. Will the magic of the carbon market be unleashed? Or will the historic commitment be kept to not allow offsets to count toward scope 3 targets?
One thing that was unleashed is a range of opinions on the move. We observed three general views that we’ll label Hold The Line, Fund Climate Solutions, and Tend the Business Model, and summarize their perspectives as below:
- Hold the Line. 59 billion tons of emissions, 75% of which is fossil fuel combustion, needs to drop to 30 billion in 10 years and 6 billion by 2050. Companies need to drop their value chain emissions in alignment with that trajectory, rather than invest in offsets elsewhere
- Fund Climate Solutions. SBTi needs to support offsets, as we need the money from 8,500+ committed companies and multinationals that represent a notable percentage of global emissions to advance good projects that reduce or remove emissions.
- Tend the Business Model. Make SBTi work as a business. Many businesses say scope 3 is too challenging without offsets. Of course, you accept offsets as that’s what your customers want, and there’s risk of customer loss if you don’t.
How to gauge the relative merits of these views?
One thing that should be said to start is this:
- These are Science-Based Targets, not Fund the Transition Targets.
- These are Science-Based Targets, not Optimize SBTi’s Business Model Targets
Our best understanding of science indicates that we need to make dramatic emission reductions. Whether you’re a country or a company, setting targets any less ambitious than that does not make sense. Realizing targets means reduced emissions (primarily fossil fuel) in your value chain, if you’re contributing your fair share.
What that means for our views:
Tend the Business Model: SBTi should certainly be evaluating effective business models and how to best maintain itself. Supporting itself as a business for business’s sake is clearly not in alignment (i.e. make customers happy isn’t the mission, if a possible byproduct of doing the work well), and we can dispense with the Tend the Business Model view.
Fund Climate Solutions: Is there space here for carbon offsets that can clearly demonstrate that they deliver dramatic emission reductions (through avoidance or removal)? Removals are already allowed up to 10% toward a net-zero goal, if exhibiting an acceptable level of permanence and long-term removal. How much more should be allowed toward net-zero? And should removals be allowed for near-term goals as well as net-zero?
Ultimately, emissions need to be cut in half, and by 2030 is the expressed goal, which is already looming soon in the face of this level of ambition. Conservation and avoided energy use in the first place can help deliver that. Efficiency can help deliver that. Renewable energy can help deliver that. Offset projects that deliver any of that, in value chains or outside of value chains, and help drop emissions 50% are welcome.
Verification of offset project benefits continues to be a challenge, if there are efforts underway to address this. Given where we’re at, leaving it to voluntary efforts outside of SBTi targets to help drive carbon markets, and for SBTi to continue to Hold The Line on the 50% reduction target on value chain reductions is the only credible path we see to move forward. SBTi has been the only program at scale requiring GHG reductions without offsets and that should not be changed lightly.