Derik Broekhoff and Mark Trexler commented on voluntary carbon markets for
a Climate Now podcast, where they were interviewed by Katherine Gorman and James Lawler. I don’t agree with the way everything is framed here, but Trexler and Broekhoff, two individuals with a lot of experience in these markets, do raise some important points. I highlight some comments that I broadly agree with and consider important.
On Net Zero and carbon offsets
“The net zero that you're sort of accomplishing through the individual efforts [through offset claims, etc] … is entirely different from the net zero that we're talking about at a societal level.” (Trexler)
“The vast majority of … businesses around the world shouldn't be focusing on net zero, they should be focusing on getting to zero emissions.” (Broekhoff)
“There's a big question as to, ‘is this the time to start doing a lot more voluntary stuff, as opposed to figuring out how we rapidly transition to net zero at a societal level?’” (Trexler)
Additionality, quality & race to the bottom
“We never can know with absolute certainty whether something is additional or not. So, the idea that we have the standards that decide this is additional or not, is sort of misleading from the get-go. In reality, there's a continuum.” (Trexler)
“One thing that happens a lot, you start with something additional, but then people bring try and say, ‘Oh, well, I can make some money if I can get all these [non-additional] good deed projects into the market’ [using the newly approved methodology]” (Trexler)
“The quality of offsets is on a continuum, from low quality to high quality. And yet, once you're certified as an offset, once you've gotten your project validated, you can claim to be as good as anyone else. And that's a real problem, because then everybody goes for the cheapest stuff. And you end up in a race to the bottom of quality.” (Trexler)
Integration with the Paris Agreement
A long but effective summary from Broekhoff:
“Now, we're in a situation where if you go and invest in mitigation somewhere, whether that's emission reductions, or removing co2 from the atmosphere, there's a good chance that it's covered by one of these national pledges that a national government somewhere has already pledged to make that reduction or make that removal. And so, if you're going to try to claim that as an offset as a company, right, you're basically saying, well, ‘but for my purchase of this carbon credit, that emission reduction would not have happened’. But clearly, if these countries have made these pledges, I think, you know, we have to take them at their word, that they're going to make good on those pledges. We're talking about mitigation that is going to happen anyway. And so the only way you can validly count that as an offset is to, you know, go to the government and basically say, ‘hey, I want to claim this, will you relinquish the claim that you're going to make under your nationally determined contribution, that pledge you've made under the Paris Agreement, and sort it out that way?’ Now, that's a big ask. And this is a huge debate within the voluntary carbon market right now…
“People are arguing back and forth whether they really need to go to the national governments to get that, you know, this accounting adjustment, basically. But I would say that without that you don't have a valid offset. There's two ways the market can go. One is basically tap into this architecture that's being negotiated under the Paris agreement for how countries can sort out these conflicting claims and avoid double counting the emission reductions. The alternative is to say, ‘Hey, you know, are offsets really what we mean here? Is there anything really so magical about a carbon offset and becoming carbon neutral, or is what's really valuable simply contributing to global efforts in addressing climate change?’ So, another model here is that a carbon credit wouldn't be an offset, it would simply represent, you know, a verified certified tonne of emission reductions that's contributing to a country's goals, but is not an offset to your own corporate emissions. And I would argue that actually you can make the case for that being a more valuable contribution, right, that kind of investment. ‘This is what I'm doing as a company to help collective efforts on climate change’, rather than, you know, ‘I've got my own little neck of the woods covered with my own carbon footprint’. But that's a huge shift in the paradigm for these markets.”