What we're reading about, 4/19/24
Climate, energy, and sustainability coverage we've been following around the web
(1) The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), which certifies whether an organization’s climate targets are in line with the economy-wide level of emissions reduction needed to keep global warming below 1.5C, is catching heat for a statement it made on April 9th regarding the use of “environmental attribute certificates” (EACs) for offsetting Scope 3 emissions.
SBTi has previously defined EACs as “instruments used to quantify, verify and track the environmental benefits associated with climate mitigation activities or projects.” EACs can be traded, which “may allow buyers to make claims, while also providing financial incentives to interventions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote renewable energy or achieve other sustainability objectives.”
Examples of EACs include (i) energy attribute certificates for electricity, (ii) other “energy carrier” certificates, e.g. for green hydrogen, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), etc.; (iii) emission reduction credits; and (iv) certificates that convey the emissions intensity of a commodity (e.g. green steel). Per Reuters, SBTi rejected the use of such offsets in emissions reduction target setting until the April 9th statement.
Here’s what the SBTi had to say about the change (emphasis mine):
“SBTi has decided to extend [the use of EACs] for the purpose of abatement of Scope 3 related emissions beyond the current limits… This will entail the definition by SBTi of specific guardrails and thresholds as well as the rules to be applied for these certificates to be considered valid for Scope 3 emissions abatement purposes respecting the principles of mitigation hierarchy… SBTi considers this step a way to accelerate the decarbonization of value chains with compensation logic while companies make their way to eliminate carbon emissions at the root through innovation and technology improvements.”
In a letter to the organization’s management that the Guardian reported on, many SBTi staff and advisors called for the statement to be withdrawn and for CEO Luiz Fernando do Amaral to resign, along with any board members who supported the decision. Stephan Singer, senior advisor at the nonprofit Climate Action Network and former advisor to SBTi, told Reuters that he resigned over the issue. The SBTi staff statement reads:
“We stand ready to support any efforts aimed at ensuring that the SBTi does not become a greenwashing platform where decisions are unduly influenced by lobbyists, driven by potential conflicts of interest and poor adherence to existing governance procedures.”
Not everyone responded to the SBTi statement negatively, however. Proponents of the move argued that letting companies use EACs would secure market support for green projects that could be sellers of EACs. Maria Mediluce, chief executive of the We Mean Business Coalition, a major funder of SBTi, told the Guardian:
“Companies value SBTi and are committed to delivering on their emissions reductions targets, but need greater clarity and flexibility in how to navigate Scope 3 emissions. This change empowers companies to bring more innovation and investment into cutting emissions from their value chains.”
Three days after putting out the statement on EACs, SBTi issued a clarification emphasizing that no change has yet been made to SBTi’s target-setting standards. When adopting changes to its guidance and policies such as sector-specific guidance for a new industry, SBTi goes through an extensive research, drafting, public consultation and approval process. Part of the staff outrage was driven by the fact that the initial statement bypassed this typical adoption procedure. SBTi clarified to the FT that any changes to scope 3 guidance will go through the same process – a backtrack from the initial statement – and that a proposal regarding potential changes will be drafted in July.
Another important piece of context is that SBTi gets about half of its funding from “validation service fees.” If no companies want to submit a target for validation, that source of funding could dry up. Thus, the Scope 3 fiasco reflects the fundamental tension of SBTi’s model. The organization is tasked with the mission of creating a target setting framework that is rigorous and scientific, yet not so ambitious that companies will stop volunteering to participate.
(2) According to a new report from think tank Global Energy Monitor, the world’s coal fleet grew by 2% to 2,130 gigawatts in 2023, with China accounting for approximately two thirds of the increase. Per Bloomberg coverage of the report, the primary drivers of the growth in global net coal-power capacity were a surge in new power plants in China and a slowdown in retirements in the EU and US.
(3) Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo interviewed Arizona State University climate scientist Stephanie Arcusa about her provocation that relying too heavily on life cycle analysis (LCA) – that is, totaling up all of the emissions from a given product or service from cradle to grave – could hinder our ability to achieve net-zero emissions. She suggests instead that carbon accounting should focus on tracking carbon before it’s emitted and diffuses into the atmosphere:
“At the point where [fossil fuels are] created out of the ground is where we know how much carbon there is. If we focus on that source through a policy that requires mandatory sequestration — for every ton of carbon that is now produced, there is a ton of carbon that’s been put away through carbon removal, and the accounting happens there, before it is sold to anybody — anybody who’s now downstream of that supply chain is already carbon neutral. There is no need to track carbon all the way down to the consumer.”
Arcusa’s point of view seems to be that carbon accounting should be linked to the economics of carbon capture and storage (CCS) - if emissions can be avoided or sequestered at the point when they’re emitted, you can avoid the measurement hassle of LCA (or, relatedly, Scope 3 emissions) and the technical challenges of trying to pull low-purity CO2 out of the atmosphere.
(4) Coral reefs around the world are experiencing the fourth global bleaching event on record – and the second in the last decade – driven by high ocean temperatures (in turn caused by climate change). Derek Manzello, the Coral Reef Watch coordinator at the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), told Axios that 54 percent of the world’s coral coverage is being affected by bleaching. “I think this is a huge global warming,” Manzello said. “We’re seeing severe mass coral bleaching taking place simultaneously in all three major ocean basins.”
(NOAA)
(5) The EPA will start mandating that water utilities reduce perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (known colloquially as PFAS) to near-zero levels. EPA administrator Michael Regan told the NYT that the new regulation is “life changing.” According to Regan, we are “one huge step closer to finally shutting off the tap on forever chemicals once and for all.”
But as Heatmap’s Jeva Lange points out, the new EPA regulation does not stop PFAS from entering groundwater in the first place. Lange also points out that one of the most pernicious sources of PFAS pollution comes from a very high value use case, especially in light of rising global temperatures: firefighting foam.
(6) In 2019, the UK pledged to spend £11.6 billion on international climate finance (aid to help developing countries reduce their emissions) between 2021 and 2026, doubling its prior commitment to climate-focused foreign aid. This week, CarbonBrief reported that the UK government has only been able to keep up with this goal by reclassifying other aid programs as “climate finance.” Some aid is better than no aid, but it’s debatable how much good climate-related foreign aid will do if it just cannibalizes existing sources of North-to-South financing.
 |
|