Carbon Free Boston: Offsets Technical Report

Part of a series of reports that includes: Carbon Free Boston: Summary Report; Carbon Free Boston: Social Equity Report; Carbon Free Boston: Technical Summary; Carbon Free Boston: Buildings Technical Report; Carbon Free Boston: Transportation Technical Report; Carbon Free Boston: Waste Technical Report; Carbon Free Boston: Energy Technical Report; Available at http://sites.bu.edu/cfb/OVERVIEW: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines offsets as a specific activity or set of activities intended to reduce GHG emissions, increase the storage of carbon, or enhance GHG removals from the atmosphere [1]. From a city perspective, they provide a mechanism to negate residual GHG emissions— those the city is unable to reduce directly—by supporting projects that avoid or sequester them outside of the city’s reporting boundary. Offsetting GHG emissions is a controversial topic for cities, as the co-benefits of the investment are typically not realized locally. For this reason, offsetting emissions is considered a last resort, a strategy option available when the city has exhausted all others. However, offsets are likely to be a necessity to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 and promote emissions reductions in the near term. While public and private sector partners pursue the more complex systems transformation, cities can utilize offsets to support short-term and relatively cost-effective reductions in emissions. Offsets can be a relatively simple, certain, and high-impact way to support the transition to a low-carbon world. This report focuses on carbon offset certificates, more often referred to as offsets. Each offset represents a metric ton of verified carbon dioxide (CO2) or equivalent emissions that is reduced, avoided, or permanently removed from the atmosphere (“sequestered”) through an action taken by the creator of the offset. The certificates can be traded and retiring (that is, not re-selling) offsets can be a useful component of an overall voluntary emissions reduction strategy, alongside activities to lower an organization’s direct and indirect emissions. In the Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories (GPC), the GHG accounting system used by the City of Boston, any carbon offset certificates that the City has can be deducted from the City’s total GHG emissions.http://sites.bu.edu/cfb/files/2019/06/CFB_Offsets_Technical_Report_051619.pdfPublished versio

Laying the Foundation: An Analytical Tool for Assessing Legal and Institutional Readiness for PES

This booklet has been created as an initial resource for public sector officials interested in fostering an environment in which PES transactions can occur. While PES legal and policy readiness is likely to look very different from one country to another -- depending on legal frameworks, as well as historical and current circumstances and pressures -- understanding policy options for getting ready for PES transactions is an important first step towards assessing readiness within a specific national and subnational context.This booklet offers an analytical framework for assessing legal and institutional readiness for PES transactions. It is divided into three sections based on timing and the order of addressing issues, with an eye to what will be most important to investors and buyers in payment for ecosystem services agreements. Specifically, the first level of preparing for PES agreements should be ensuring that fundamental or threshold conditions are in place for buyers to feel that there is sufficient stability in place to consider entering in these business arrangements. The second level of preparedness, while important for well-functioning PES, may be developed adaptively as needs and options become clearer via PES experience on the ground. Finally, level three includes non-urgent aspects that may be important to streamline or scale up PES, depending on the particular circumstances

Commentary: Nature-Based Insetting: A Harmful Distraction from Corporate Decarbonization

Carbon offsetting is used worldwide on a massive scale, purportedly to mitigate climate change by capturing atmospheric carbon or by increasing or protecting carbon storage. Yet, in recent years, offsetting has been increasingly criticized as a strategy that can harm Indigenous peoples and local communities, exacerbate land inequality, and, paradoxically, worsen the global climate crisis. “Carbon insetting” has emerged as an alternative approach to offsetting that localizes nature-based solutions projects and other greenhouse gas removal activities within company value chains and has been adopted by major global brands such as Nestlé, PepsiCo, and Burberry. This commentary takes a deep dive into insetting projects that employ nature-based solutions, finds that they are likely to suffer from many of the same shortcomings as nature-based offsetting, and argues that corporate reliance on insetting should be treated with extreme skepticism

The Business Guide to the Low Carbon Economy: California

Outlines California's climate change policy and offers a detailed framework for calculating and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and purchasing offsets. Includes focus areas for each sector, reference lists, and profiles of successful strategies

Shared value: agricultural carbon insetting for sustainable, climate-smart supply chains and better rural livelihoods

The relentless advance of climate change negatively impacts farmers, businesses, and consumers by putting greater pressure on natural resources, making the weather more unpredictable, and depressing crop productivity. To cope with climate change requires multilateral efforts that draw on the experience of farmer groups, research and development organizations, and the private sector. One increasingly important focal point for such efforts is an approach referred to as carbon insetting, which offers the private sector a means to create shared value for the benefit of all stakeholders. The approach can make a company’s value chain more productive and resilient, sustaining supplies over the long term. By creating synergies between climate change mitigation and adaptation in agriculture (e.g., through practices such as agroforestry), carbon insetting can also generate incentives and funding for climate change adaptation while enhancing farmers’ livelihoods

Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2022: Assessing the transparency and integrity of companies emission reduction and net-zero targets

The Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor evaluates the transparency and integrity of companies' climate pledges. The objectives of the Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor are:Identify and highlight good practice approaches that can be replicated by other companies, recognising that companies are experimenting to work out what is constructive and credible practice.Reveal the extent to which major companies' climate leadership claims have integrity, and provide a structured methodology for others to replicate such an evaluation.Scrutinise the credibility of companies' plans for offsetting their emissions through carbon dioxide removals or emission reduction credits, recognising that voluntary carbon markets are highly fragmented and there remains a lot of uncertainty on credible good practice.The Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor focuses on four main areas of corporate climate action: tracking and disclosure of emissions, setting emission reduction targets , reducing own emissions and taking responsibility for unabated emissions through climate contributions or offsetting. Finally, it evaluatates 25 major global companies' transparency and integrety across these four areas

Understanding the demand for REDD+ credits

REDD (Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation), broadened to REDD+, has recently emerged as a potentially important component of the global policy mix to mitigate climate change. In this context, it has been the hope of policy-makers that private sector stakeholders will turn into novel and active actors in many of the different components of REDD+ such as forest conservation and many have expected them to play a central role in providing funding for forest protection. However, even as REDD+ credits have become increasingly available on the voluntary market - private sector stakeholders seem to have lost interest REDD+ carbon credits. In order to better understand possible models of private sector engagement in REDD+ in the future, this report analyzes the motivation of a sample of private sector stakeholders to engage in REDD+, the perception of the potential of REDD+, the critical obstacles to making REDD+ functional and finally how private sector actors perceive themselves as part of future REDD+ scenarios. Based on a range of qualitative engagements with a wide grouping of private sector actors, we find that few seem to expect a regulatory market for REDD+ to emerge and that credits from the voluntary market have to be more tailor-made to their specific needs (ranging from demands based on Corporate Social Responsibility, to portfolio diversification and hedging strategies against stranded assets). The carbon value alone is currently not sufficient for many private actors. For REDD+ to become more attractive for most surveyed private sector stakeholders, the main problem is the uncertainty about how REDD+ will be designed in the future, along with building understanding of the values, barriers and risks that accompany REDD+

Understanding the demand for REDD+ credits

Reducing emissions from deforestation and forestdegradation (REDD+) has emerged as a potentially important component of the global policy mix to mitigate climate change. Against a background of increasing engagement between private sector entities and conservation organizations, private sector investment has emerged in REDD+. Despite slow developments at the international scale, there continues to be private sector interest in REDD+and continued voluntary investments in REDD+ projects and initiatives. In order to better understand possible models for private sector engagement in REDD+, this study analysed the motivation of private sector stakeholders toengage in REDD+, the perception of the potential of REDD+, the critical obstacles to making REDD+ functional and how actors perceive themselves as part of future REDD+ scenarios. Based on interviews and a workshop with private sector actors, this study found that few expect a regulatory market for REDD+ to emerge and that credits from the voluntary market have to be tailored to specific needs. As a carbon offset, REDD+ provides insufficient motivation for investment, particularly if cheaper alternatives exist. Co-benefits such as biodiversity conservation and community development are more important when traditional corporate social responsibility motivations play a role. Project scale remains important not only for the fact that smaller projects are viewed as offering more visible benefits to stakeholders but also as a means of having more control over risks on the ground, posing a challenge for the design of jurisdictional REDD+. Moving towards supply chains that are free from deforestation offers an opportunity to tackle commodity-driven deforestation. While questions remain about how such an approach might be integrated into REDD+, it could help address a perceived gap between private sector understanding of the values of REDD+ and the risks associated with these values not arising - termed here as a ‘missingmiddle'