Carbon Offsets are Under Scrutiny. They Can and Need to Be Fixed.
We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: Companies cannot pay to erase their carbon footprint. Companies can and must make real progress to lower their total carbon footprint and only then, if needed, use high-quality offsets to cancel out their hardest-to-eliminate emissions.
We’re repeating this carbon action mantra because the headlines are abuzz with the news: a major offsetting program - Verra - has been strongly criticized by an independent investigation for selling ineffective offsets. This situation does not mean that all offsets are low quality, though many are. So what does this mean? It means that companies are probably not getting what they paid for. The trees they paid to protect weren’t in jeopardy to begin with, for example. And why does this matter?
To secure global climate stability, we don’t have the time to waste on distractions. Money needs to go where it will have the highest impact.
We need to make it achievable and financially viable for companies to halve their carbon output by 2030 and to stay on path to achieve decarbonization by 2050.
In the meantime, there can be real benefits for corporations investing in effective offsetting programs, and their funds help reforestation and conservation programs to survive. But as we’ve seen, blindly funneling money into programs won’t guarantee that they are effective. And even if they are effective at carbon reduction, the programs must also ensure the protection of indigenous peoples who have historically been pushed out of their territories for these programs. Due diligence is therefore critical.
An independent group, The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM), has published a valuable due diligence framework that should be applied by companies to all offsetting programs. The ICVCM’s Core Carbon Principles (CCPs) were published in draft form in July 2022, and the final version is expected in the coming months.
Here are the draft principles, plus our quick summaries of each:
Additionality.
Carbon offsets should be a supplement to your business-as-usual procedures. Offsets should be designed to produce *additional* outcomes that would not occur otherwise.
Mitigation activity information.
The way that the emissions are being reduced needs to be publicly documented.
No double counting.
Only one company can claim the carbon reductions.
Permanence.
If the emissions reductions activities are accidentally stopped or eliminated (the forest burned down, for example), that issue needs to be accounted for.
Program governance.
Transparency and accountability need to be included.
Registry.
Accurate record-keeping is critical.
Validation and Verification.
Robust independent third-party validation and verification to ensure the claims are accurate.
Accurate counting.
Robust quantification of emission reductions and removals so accuracy is maximized.
Sustainable development impacts and safeguards.
Programs must put in place best practices and social safeguards to prevent negative impacts on communities.
Transition toward net-zero emissions.
The program should be designed in a way that its own activities can be decarbonized.
The ICVCM will assess programs and enforce the principles framework above, but that will likely take years. In the meantime, companies are on the hook themselves to conduct due diligence and be sure that their offsetting partner is not greenwashing or carrying out human rights abuses.
Due diligence can be heavy and complicated. But we can help.
The Uplift Agency
Uplift builds strategies, programs, and communication campaigns that advance ESG in workplaces, supply chains and communities.
We know how to navigate the road ahead because we’ve already been down it – 90 percent of our team has led environmental or social programs in corporations or nonprofits. Because ESG is all we do, our services are more comprehensive and integrated than most firms.
