The concept of global net zero GHG emissions is well grounded in science. However, applying this concept to individual companies and other entities is more honestly a moral question of how we agree to allocate responsibility for mitigation and how companies are recognized for taking meaningful action. This latest post explores the question: Do we need a paradigm shift in how we think about net zero and offsetting - Compensation to contributions? Derik Broekhoff Owen Hewlett Nathan Truitt Mark Trexler Tani Colbert-Sangree Alexia Kelly https://lnkd.in/gYjgyz4u
Eric Ripley
1mo
Michael Gillenwater I appreciate your post and agree with much of it. One of the issues I see though (and that Owen Hewlett alludes to in his earlier comment) is that a contributions approach could potentially result in significant imprecision in measurement and monitoring and/or disregard for other basic accounting concepts, like permanence/durability. If a company can simply claim that they've contributed to some outcome and this will supposedly avoid potential criticism, who's incentivized to ensure the basic accounting principles that carbon credit projects adhere to (or, are supposed to adhere to) are met? Couldn't this equally call into question any "claims" a company makes even if it's a contribution instead of compensation? Depending on your view, that's not a good outcome of a contributions approach. I'd also love to see some research on whether contributions would actually result in expanded climate finance. I suspect not. If that's the case, yes, from an academic perspective "contributions" alleviate certain issues but at the expense of broader climate action.
Joshua Bishop
1mo
Good articulation of the case for framing corporate climate action as ‘contributions’ rather than as compensatory mitigation of (residual) emissions. Comments worth reading! If I understand correctly, the way entities measure climate responsibility would remain unchanged. The main difference seems to be in how entities describe their investments and what claims they make. Some questions: Would this new framing better meet the needs of buyers who want to report actions commensurate with their responsibility, based on accepted metrics? May be worth asking a panel of buyers. And as others point out, how would buyers (and their critics) assess when they have done ‘enough’ at each stage on the pathway to a net zero world? And would a contribution framing increase climate finance or shift the way that climate investments are allocated? If so, who wins/loses?
Marc Cortez
1mo
The paradigm shift would come from true carbon accounting, versus the carbon counting we do today. Imagine if carbon because assets and liabilities. No more scope 1 vs. 2 vs. 3 (just worry about your own scope 1), and turn emissions and removal into balance sheet items. It would stop the double/triple counting problem and allow organizations to truly focus on their own contributions.
John Bolduc
1mo
It feels like the reframing of credits as contributions is constructive. There would still be issues with the credibility of these contributions and much goodness a corporation could claim. But it seems helpful to separate offsets so that a corporation’s emissions could be seen and managed more clearly. I’m not sure all corporations wish their emissions to be seen clearly though.
Joseph Sarvary
1mo
Really well written piece Michael Gillenwater. I appreciate the communications benefit of moving away from static target dates (i.e. Net Zero 2040) and moving toward annual disclosure of contributions to GHG abatement. I struggle however on the loosening of the measure of how much action should be taken by a company. In the current prevailing offsetting view, a company should neutralize its emissions with an equivalent amount of removals to be net zero. In the contributory approach, each company can choose the financial sum that they feel is sufficient to cover their carbon externality. And further they can contribute that sum to any manner of project they feel interested in. In an ideal world, each company would price all their emissions at the social cost of carbon and dedicate those funds to a diversified portfolio of solutions akin to Milkywires climate fund. However, companies may move toward contributory approach with a less noble motive - removal credits are just too expensive. So instead of being forced to pay the removal price for their entire footprint (to reach Net Zero) they choose a lower sum of money to dedicate as a "contribution to global net zero" ... Seems to me a dangerous move in the wrong direction
Will Turner
1mo
This is great Michael Gillenwater. Lots I’d love to discuss but mainly I’m enjoying your spirit of questioning & digging to the implicit principles & logic behind various stances, and your clarity in unpacking it all.
Your Climate Change Toolbox | Business Climate Risk | Climate Knowledge Management | Carbon Offsets | Scenario Planning
1moI have tended to characterize the "trickling down" of the net zero concept from the global to the company-specific as a classic "fallacy of division." The idea of global net zero makes perfect sense (without getting into all the arcane details of overshoot etc). But taking global net zero and then dividing the idea up among all the companies of the world (basically science based targets), and then suggesting that focusing on corporate net zero should be our priority, is just non-sensical. You get to global net zero, basically, through wide-ranging policy and incentive frameworks. Corporate net zero encourages massive greenwishing (and quite a bit of greenwashing), and will be unachievable anyway in most cases - as we're starting to see. Hence the "Fallacy of Division."