When the biggest funders and promoters of the $2 billion carbon offsets market assembled in London last month, the gathering was billed as a series of technical discussions on subjects such as emissions accounting. But, at least to some attendees, there also appeared to be another motive — to make a case for why the Science Based Targets initiative, the biggest and most-respected verifier of corporate climate targets, is the main impediment to the growth of a market that advocates deem critical in fighting climate change.
In a world full of greenwashing, SBTi has become a gold standard in emissions accountability because of its strict criteria for net-zero plans. It currently limits how corporations can use offsets – credits that companies can buy to ostensibly cancel out their pollution – to achieve their green targets. The issue is one of the most divisive among climate experts. Powerful proponents including former US climate envoy John Kerry argue they’re needed to shift money into important sustainability projects, while critics say it’s almost impossible to verify the true impact of the instruments.
The meetings last month were hosted by the Bezos Earth Fund, a supporter of growing the voluntary carbon market and one of two main funders of SBTi.
They were held in a workspace in London’s Clerkenwell district. Two SBTi representatives were present and faced a barrage of implicit and direct requests to relax their position on carbon offsets from senior leaders of prominent carbon market standards and lobbying groups, the people said.
A month later, on April 9, SBTi made an about-face on offsets that caught even its staff off guard — the group said it would loosen its rules for how companies can use carbon credits to reduce their reported emissions. That would lead to a boon for the carbon offsets market, which has recently been rocked by turbulence. BloombergNEF says such a change could help annual demand soar to $1.1 trillion in 2050.
The move outraged SBTi staff, who called on the CEO and board to resign in an April 10 letter. They argued that the board violated SBTi rules and procedures by making this decision unilaterally, rather than relying on guidance from SBTi’s independent technical council, which wasn’t informed or consulted.
On April 12, SBTi added a clarification to its previous statement, emphasizing that “no change has been made to SBTi current standards,” and that any shifts to its rules will go through all of its standard procedures.
In a world full of greenwashing, SBTi has become a gold standard in emissions accountability because of its strict criteria for net-zero plans. It currently limits how corporations can use offsets – credits that companies can buy to ostensibly cancel out their pollution – to achieve their green targets. The issue is one of the most divisive among climate experts. Powerful proponents including former US climate envoy John Kerry argue they’re needed to shift money into important sustainability projects, while critics say it’s almost impossible to verify the true impact of the instruments.
The meetings last month were hosted by the Bezos Earth Fund, a supporter of growing the voluntary carbon market and one of two main funders of SBTi.
They were held in a workspace in London’s Clerkenwell district. Two SBTi representatives were present and faced a barrage of implicit and direct requests to relax their position on carbon offsets from senior leaders of prominent carbon market standards and lobbying groups, the people said.
A month later, on April 9, SBTi made an about-face on offsets that caught even its staff off guard — the group said it would loosen its rules for how companies can use carbon credits to reduce their reported emissions. That would lead to a boon for the carbon offsets market, which has recently been rocked by turbulence. BloombergNEF says such a change could help annual demand soar to $1.1 trillion in 2050.
The move outraged SBTi staff, who called on the CEO and board to resign in an April 10 letter. They argued that the board violated SBTi rules and procedures by making this decision unilaterally, rather than relying on guidance from SBTi’s independent technical council, which wasn’t informed or consulted.
On April 12, SBTi added a clarification to its previous statement, emphasizing that “no change has been made to SBTi current standards,” and that any shifts to its rules will go through all of its standard procedures.