Glossary

A Concrete Path to Decarbonizing Cement

by: Kayla Carey and Andrew Primo | October 27, 2022

Cement is a powdery substance that can be mixed with sand, water, and gravel to form concrete.

Most people are familiar with cement, the key ingredient in concrete, but few are likely aware of how foundational this material is to contemporary life. Buildings, roads, bridges, canals, sidewalks, railways, ports, power lines, wind, and solar farms… nearly all infrastructure requires cement and lots of it. The International Energy Agency estimates that nearly 4.3 billion tons of cement were produced in 2021 alone, making enough concrete to build the equivalent of over 2,800 Hoover Dams.

And this number will only grow. By mid-century, the global population is expected to approach 10 billion people, over two-thirds of whom will live in cities, according to the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Add to that the massive buildout of electricity, renewable energy, efficient transportation, and carbon capture infrastructure required to support a decarbonized society, and the need for a significant increase in today’s already record-high cement production levels becomes abundantly clear.

Why are cement emissions so difficult to reduce?

There is, however, a fatal catch to this skyrocketing demand: cement, as it is produced today, has a tremendous greenhouse gas footprint. And decarbonizing isn’t as simple as substituting coal with renewable energy or electrifying vehicles. At least half of all emissions generated from the production of Portland cement (the global standard) are released during production through the creation of “clinker,” one of the primary steps in cement production.

Clinker is produced in giant kilns, where limestone and other minerals are superheated to temperatures up to 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit. The chemical byproduct of this process is tremendous amounts of carbon dioxide (CO₂): in the United States, one metric ton of CO₂ is emitted for every metric ton of Portland cement produced. Because of the difficulty in avoiding the process emissions from this critical step in production, cement is considered a “hard-to-abate” industry.

Clinker production requires high heat and releases carbon dioxide as waste. Image Source: Cement Association of Canada

With such huge volumes of cement produced each year at such high emission rates, the cement industry has become one of the most carbon-intensive on the planet, contributing approximately 2.4 billion metric tons of CO₂. That’s more than all aviation and maritime shipping emissions combined, and these will only continue to increase unless rapid steps are taken to reduce cement’s carbon intensity.

How can we reduce cement’s hard-to-abate emissions?

With the increasing demand for infrastructure paired with the urgency for decarbonization, how can the cement industry balance this paradox? Unsurprisingly, there is not a single or simple solution.

The Global Cement and Concrete Association’s (GCCA) 2050 Net-Zero Roadmap identifies several actions that the cement industry can adopt to slash greenhouse gas emissions and limit the most severe consequences of climate change. These strategies include:

Improving operational efficiency;
Switching to less carbon-intensive fuel sources;
Replacing traditional limestone-derived clinker with alternative materials; and
Deploying carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) technologies.

Each pathway can have a significant impact on lowering the carbon intensity of cement; however, only a couple of technologies can reduce the troublesome emissions released during clinker production – clinker replacement and CCUS.

Clinker Replacement: In certain applications, clinker can be at least partially replaced with alternative products called supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs). Typical SCMs are byproducts of industrial processes, such as coal and steel production; however, transitions in these industries, such as the closing of coal-fired power plants and the shift to more efficient steel-production furnaces, have limited the availability of these commonly used SCMs, creating a gap between supply and demand. Some companies have launched demonstration projects to produce additional clinker replacements, such as fly ash harvested from landfills and naturally occurring substances—known as “natural pozzolans”—like volcanic ash. But producing and treating these materials so that they can be used in cement is complicated and expensive, and they have not yet reached the scale needed to meet the worsening SCM supply void.

Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage: CCUS—in which the CO₂ released in clinker production is captured and stored or used in other applications—is another key approach to reducing cement’s process emissions. Very few CCUS projects currently exist, especially at cement plants. Nearly all CCUS projects worldwide are still in the pilot phase as the technology faces substantial implementation challenges and is extremely cost-prohibitive.

Nearly 4.3 billion tons of cement were produced in 2021, which is enough concrete to build the equivalent of over 2,800 Hoover Dams.

Leveraging the Voluntary Carbon Market

For hard-to-abate sectors to meet net-zero targets on time, they must work together to employ a mix of proven and emerging technologies, such as clinker replacement and CCUS. But how can the industry overcome existing economic and technical challenges to scaling these technologies? The voluntary carbon market could be an important lever in bringing new SCMs to market and making CCUS more economically viable.

Today, there are a growing number of opportunities for the cement industry to generate voluntary carbon credits. One of the most trusted carbon offset registries, the Climate Action Reserve, recently announced the development of a Low-Carbon Cement Protocol that will incentivize the production of innovative SCMs to address the current supply gap. In addition to tax incentives, new opportunities are also emerging to generate carbon credits from CCUS projects. The cement industry can leverage the voluntary carbon market to direct much-needed financing to the sector and accelerate the road to decarbonization.

About the Authors

Kayla Carey is a Manager for Program Development, specializing in decarbonization for hard-to-abate sectors. With experience in sustainability management and energy policy, she helps energy and industrial clients navigate environmental markets and develop new quantitative methodologies. She holds a master’s degree in Environmental and Natural Resources Policy and a Bachelor of Arts in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, both from the University of Colorado Boulder.

Andrew Primo is a Manager on ClimeCo’s Program Development team, based out of Denver, Colorado. He assesses the feasibility of new emission reduction projects in hard-to-abate sectors, including heavy industry, waste management, and shipping. He works with corporate partners and carbon registries to develop new technical methodologies for carbon crediting programs.

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022: Tipping the Scale Toward Clean Energy

NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE DISTRIBUTION
CONTACT
Nancy Marshall, Vice President, Marketing
484.415.7603 or nmarshall@climeco.com

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022: Tipping the Scale Toward Clean Energy

by: Erica Lasdon | August 30, 2022

Boyertown, Pennsylvania (August 30, 2022) – Sweeping legislation signed into law this month by President Biden will allow for unprecedented investments to decarbonize the nation’s economy. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) earmarks the bulk of its $490 billion spending on clean energy and climate change mitigation initiatives.

Combined with other recent spending bills, the U.S. government is set to begin a period of transformative investments. The Rocky Mountain Institute, a clean energy think tank, notes that the combined bills will more than triple annual real federal spending compared with recent years, which was already elevated from levels of the 1990s and early 2000s.

While the IRA is far from perfect, advocates say it provides extraordinary opportunities for the conservation of our nation’s lands and waterways and includes significant resources for restoring wildlife habitats and forests.

The legislation is expected to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to approximately 40%, compared to 2005-levels, by 2030. Without enactment of the IRA, the U.S. was on course to reduce its GHG emissions to only 26%, compared to 2005-levels, over this period, according to an analysis from the World Economic Forum.

For the U.S. to reach its emissions-reduction targets, it’s imperative that we begin to take action across the entire technology adoption curve. This means exploring: 

Existing technologies that are ready for market but not deployed. 
Solutions that require some further development to be market ready. 
Technologies that are only prototypes and need significant development.

Importantly, IRA resources will focus on the most hard-to-abate industrial sectors, such as electric power generation.

As widely reported, the IRA is projected to drive significant emissions reductions in the electric power sector. To a certain extent, this can lower production emissions in steel, cement, and other carbon-intensive industries. However, practical options to capture carbon from industrial processes and traditional energy production require substantial investment to help meet climate goals. The IRA addresses these challenges by creating incentives through a system of grants, loans, and tax credits, including making certain existing credits larger and more durable.

Here are a few key IRA provisions for companies and investors to be aware of:

Changes to 45Q, the existing tax credit for carbon capture and storage (CCS), make it more profitable and easier to access. Companies will be able to earn $85 for every metric ton of CO2 sequestered, rather than $50/ton previously. (The amount earned is less if the CO2 is buried during oil extraction.) The timeline is more favorable too. Previously, a company had to start building capture equipment by 2026. Now it’s 2033. The IRA also significantly lowers the minimum capture requirement.
Methane emissions are an urgent issue for many industries, as this type of emission is far more potent than carbon dioxide and hard to detect. For the oil and gas industry, investments in methane detection and a first-time federal fee on methane emissions will amplify existing initiatives within industry to tackle this problem. The IRA also funds grants, rebates, loans, and other assistance to facilities subject to the methane fee for a variety of measures, including adding or improving equipment and processes that reduce methane emissions.
Other long-term tax credits include clean hydrogen fuel development, direct-air-capture deployment, and advanced nuclear projects for heavy industry.

By driving down the cost of clean energy and other climate solutions, this approach may make it easier for companies and local governments to increase their climate ambitions. 

Regardless of your business’s sector, you will feel the impact of the IRA and related legislation. As the landscape shifts, companies and investors should factor an increasing rate of technological and systems change into their future plans.

Deep decarbonization is complex work that requires a diverse set of policy, legal, technology, and market solutions. Forthcoming investments by the U.S. government seek to put the country on a net-zero pathway. Importantly, investors and corporations have many tools available to assess their pathways to net-zero.

Since our founding, ClimeCo has been a leading transformation partner to companies, investors, and governments pursuing a low-carbon future.  As a vertically integrated sustainability solutions provider, we have enabled our clients to go beyond business as usual. By developing frontier technology- and nature-based carbon-reduction projects, transacting voluntary and compulsory environmental credits, and advising on climate risk and disclosure, our team is dedicated to implementing decarbonization pathways tailored to our clients’ specific sectors, business models, and balance sheets.

Please get in touch with us if you want to learn more about our:

Complete range of ESG Advisory solutions that help companies improve readiness and resilience in the ever-changing regulatory environment. 
Project Development capabilities around high-quality carbon projects that feature strong engagement with our project partners, local stakeholders, carbon registries, and credit buyers.
 
Environmental Credit offerings from projects we develop and projects we invest in.

About ClimeCo

ClimeCo is a respected global advisor, transaction facilitator, trader, and developer of environmental commodity market products and related solutions. We specialize in voluntary carbon, regulated carbon, renewable energy credits, plastics credits, and regional criteria pollutant trading programs. Complimenting these programs is a team of professionals skilled in providing sustainability program management solutions and developing and financing of GHG abatement and mitigation systems.

For more information or to discuss how ClimeCo can drive value for your organization, contact us at 484.415.0501, info@climeco.com, or through our website climeco.com. Be sure to follow us on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter using our handle, @ClimeCo.

Dispatches from the Nature-Based Solutions Conference

by: Emily Romano | August 25, 2022

Site visit by ClimeCo at a reforestation project in Louisiana

Nature-based solutions (NBS) are an important part of the work we do at ClimeCo, and they are a growing sector of carbon markets. NBS are defined as actions that restore, manage, and protect natural habitats for societal benefit, including mitigation and adaptation to the effects of climate change. These activities, such as reforestation, peatland rewetting, or grassland management, have received extensive media coverage in recent years and months as they play an increasingly important role in many corporate and national climate plans. Successful NBS projects have the potential to achieve a trifecta of climate, community, and biodiversity benefits, while poorly designed projects are rightfully criticized as a step backward for climate goals, human rights, and ecosystem health.

With this context in mind, I attended the Nature-based Solutions Conference in Oxford, UK, in July 2022, hosted by researchers at the Nature-based Solutions Initiative. Held in the beautiful Oxford University Museum of Natural History, the conference attracted a wide range of researchers, policymakers, activists, NGO members, and practitioners. Sessions addressed topics such as the global status and criticisms of NBS, inclusive project governance and narratives, improved biodiversity outcomes, the economics of NBS, and applications for urban environments.

I learned a lot from the speakers, whose presentations addressed the conference’s central question: “How can we ensure that NBS support thriving human and ecological communities?” In this blog, I summarize and share the key messages I took home from this conference.

Bodleian Library, Oxford University

Key Takeaways

Concern for Low-Quality NBS

With careful planning and consideration, NBS projects can provide powerful, sustainable, and cost-effective benefits to their host communities. Unfortunately, a number of low-quality NBS projects around the world have failed in recent decades. These failures are almost always due to protocols with inadequate provisions for permanence and additionality or a lack of robust safeguards of human rights and biodiversity.

The conference explored numerous concerns surrounding low-quality NBS, primarily those voiced by Indigenous and local communities regarding projects that have caused and perpetuated human rights abuses. These include land tenure injustice, displacement of people and livelihoods, and denial of community access to natural resources. This sort of project is often characterized by a top-down design without the active participation of the local community, prioritization of western value systems, and a lack of transparency or long-term monitoring requirements. Low-quality projects often result in ecosystem failures due to inappropriate species selection or project location or the establishment of monoculture plantations without regard for local biodiversity.

An additional concern voiced at the conference was that NBS not be used in greenwashing schemes by polluters to replace decarbonization efforts. While ecosystems play an important role in climate change mitigation and adaptation, they are not capable of compensating for delayed emissions reductions in other sectors. Speakers also highlighted the moral hazard of entities from the Global North who might seek to export the responsibility and the work of decarbonization to the Global South.

These concerns are critically important for improving NBS project outcomes. The conference’s primary focus was on how to address these concerns and included many examples of current best practices from around the world.

Tradeoffs, Inclusive Project Design and Governance, and Narratives

While many NBS projects generate desirable co-benefits or “win-win” results for society and biodiversity, projects may also generate tradeoffs that create tension between competing project goals. For example, biophysical tradeoffs might occur if a project prioritizes one ecosystem service at the expense of another. Social tradeoffs might occur between stakeholders with different cultural or spiritual valuations of nature or between those with scientific knowledge and those with Indigenous knowledge. Project developers must acknowledge and mitigate these tradeoffs in partnership with local stakeholders to account for the full range of project impacts.

One strong message from the conference was the critical role that Indigenous and local community members must play in all stages of NBS projects and the importance of free, prior, and informed consent. Numerous speakers pointed out that many Indigenous groups have traditionally implemented successful NBS within their own communities, and their knowledge can fill critical gaps in scientific understanding. The inclusion of these groups from the design to the implementation to the monitoring stage of a project is not only a basic indicator of respect but can also tangibly improve project outcomes.

Indigenous and community leaders from numerous countries, including Zambia, China, Tanzania, Peru, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, presented case studies illustrating successful NBS outcomes in their communities. These presentations called for projects to distribute benefits equitably among community members, ensure a living wage, and create sources of long-term finance controlled by the local community. Finally, the speakers emphasized the critical importance of land tenure for Indigenous peoples.

ClimeCo meeting indigenous workers at a mangrove reforestation project in Indonesia

How to Prioritize and Adequately Represent Biodiversity

Another conference theme was the need for better metrics of biodiversity, so that progress can be adequately represented in project designs and monitoring plans. Speakers highlighted several scientific and technological advances, such as ecosystem DNA and high-resolution carbon mapping tools, which would facilitate project area prioritization and robust biodiversity assessment if implemented at scale.

However, some speakers quickly pointed out that “technology is not the solution. We are the solution.” In this vein, multiple speakers recommended that biodiversity monitoring plans utilize community monitoring approaches, including input from local and Indigenous groups regarding biodiversity metric selection.

Mangrove nursery managed and developed by the local community near the reforestation site

Creating High-Quality NBS

The conference delivered a crystal-clear message that projects that do not include robust provisions for human rights and biodiversity do not fall under the umbrella of the NBS term.

To avoid the pitfalls of low-quality projects, reputable carbon offset registries have developed meaningful standards for additionality and permanence and protocols that include protections for human rights and biodiversity. The most important feature of these protocols is that registries update them when a loophole is identified. Although these updates require months or even years to go into effect, this process allows registries to enforce ever-evolving concepts of “best practice.” For this reason, carbon offsets generated using the protocols of reputable registries, such as the Climate Action Reserve, Verra, the American Carbon Registry, and Gold Standard, are categorically distinct from low-quality offsets.

Regardless of protocol requirements, project developers are responsible for designing projects that adhere to best practices and meaningfully address the concerns of Indigenous and local stakeholders. Within the voluntary carbon market, project developers and carbon credit end-users must be able to recognize the indicators of a high-quality project and must be selective in the projects they choose to support.

ClimeCo’s NBS Approach

As offset project developers, the ClimeCo team always listens for new perspectives on best practices. We believe that NBS projects have enormous potential when they are designed carefully to empower and give voice to local communities. As sustainability advisors, we also feel a keen responsibility to help clients decarbonize wherever possible. Our ESG Advisory team provides many services essential to clients at any stage of their decarbonization journey. We encourage the use of offsets to address emission sources that are difficult or impossible to abate as a part of a larger decarbonization plan.

Most importantly, we understand there is no one-size-fits-all approach to NBS project development. We are grateful for each opportunity to earn a community’s trust and seek partners who share our accountability and responsible stewardship values.

ClimeCo’s Dr. Scott Subler observing freshly planted Bald Cypress saplings

Conclusion

I left the conference inspired by the incredible work being done worldwide to improve the implementation of NBS. ClimeCo will continue to listen and apply the guidance and feedback of the global NBS community, and I cannot wait to see the good our projects can do. ClimeCo is committed to informing you of new information discovered as we continue to explore in-depth NBS concerns. We welcome comments or questions surrounding this topic.

Anyone interested in watching conference sessions can access recordings and PDFs of presentations on the conference website (I recommend Session 4 and Session 9A). For those curious to see examples of high-quality projects, the Nature-based Solutions Initiative’s organizers directed us to their Case Study Platform, a map-based tool with over 100 examples of projects from around the world that meet the researchers’ quality standards.

About the Author

Emily Romano is a Project Manager at ClimeCo based in San Francisco. Within Project Development, she applies a background in climate, ecosystem, and soil science to her work managing NBS projects. She holds a Master of Science in Environmental Science and Policy from Northern Arizona University and a Bachelor of Science in Geology from Syracuse University.

Emerging Efforts to Address Reforestation’s Most Challenging Problem

by: David Chen | June 20, 2022

The Difficulty of Financing Reforestation

Reforestation is emerging as a desirable and effective tool for carbon emission removals and has received increased attention from investors in the last several years. Investments in reforestation enable vital carbon removal from the atmosphere and offer innumerable ancillary environmental and social benefits, from creating critical habitats for biodiversity to improving water quality, groundwater recharge, and flood prevention for local communities. Despite the demand for the carbon removals and ancillary benefits that reforestation projects provide, the most challenging obstacle for reforestation-based carbon offset projects begins before a shovel ever touches the ground.

For nearly all reforestation carbon offset projects, the majority of costs, such as securing easements (to ensure long-term permanence) and planting activities, occur at the beginning of a project. In contrast, most carbon sequestration benefits from reforestation activities, and therefore the associated revenue from carbon offsets, accrues slowly over a long-time horizon. This delay between when costs occur and when revenue is realized has historically made reforestation challenging to finance and has hindered projects from getting off the ground; project developers cannot implement a reforestation project without a sizable initial investment, and investors looking to secure carbon credits can find it challenging to justify such an investment without assurances that expected carbon benefits from the investment would be delivered over an extended timeline.

Although financing challenges have hindered reforestation efforts for decades, several well-known carbon offset registries, such as the Climate Action Reserve and Verra, are developing new programs and instruments that aim to address those early finance hurdles and enable more project developers, like ClimeCo, to bring reforestation projects to market.

CAR’s Climate Forward Program

One approach currently offered is the Climate Action Reserve (CAR) Climate Forward program that seeks to drive forward-looking investments, such as reforestation, by allowing projects to generate ex ante credits called Forecasted Mitigation Units (FMUs) that can be utilized to help finance the high upfront cost of getting a project launched. As opposed to traditional carbon credits generated ex post or after emission reductions occur and can be used to offset existing sources of emissions, FMUs are an environmental instrument that are issued based on forecasted emission reductions and/or removals and are intended to offset a future stream of emissions from new economic activity (i.e., a new construction project or development). Reforestation projects under the Climate Forward program must meet stringent eligibility requirements to ensure that the carbon sequestration benefits are additional and minimize and account for the risk of natural or intentional “reversals,” a situation where the stored carbon associated with a project is released back to the atmosphere.

In late April this year, CAR released Version 2 of the Climate Forward Reforestation Methodology, with additional assurances that bolster the environmental integrity of FMUs generated from reforestation projects in the Climate Forward program. One of the most noteworthy additions to the Reforestation Methodology is the inclusion of a permanence risk buffer pool to account for unintentional reversals outside a project’s control, such as fire, insects, and disease. To account for these unavoidable reversals, the newly updated Reforestation Methodology will require every reforestation project in the Climate Forward program to contribute a certain percentage of FMUs into a “permanence risk pool,” which will be collected and held as insurance. If an unintentional reversal occurs, CAR will retire the corresponding amount of FMUs from the permanence risk pool to compensate for the negative impact of the reversal. These updated assurances to the Reforestation Methodology will help give buyers confidence that their FMUs represent carbon that is stored for the long term.

Verra’s Projected Carbon Unit

Carbon registry Verra is currently creating a solution for addressing this financing problem with a new commodity called a “Projected Carbon Unit” or “PCU.” PCUs are intended to help provide a source of upfront revenue to support the development of projects on Verra’s registry before the verification and issuance of Verra’s standard carbon offset or Verified Carbon Units (VCU).

Unlike the FMUs generated in the Climate Action Reserve program, PCUs are not ex ante but are an instrument that reflects the validated projection of expected emission reductions or removals and cannot be used for offsetting claims until the associated emission reductions or removals are successfully verified (i.e., after the reduction has occurred). Upon successful verification, the PCU’s will automatically be converted to ex post VCUs. PCUs are intended to be generated using Verra’s existing methodologies which theoretically could provide early finance for a multitude of nature-based solutions and other carbon offsetting project types. Verra has completed two rounds of public consultation and intends to operationalize and launch PCUs in September 2022.

Conclusion

The recent addition of the permanence risk buffer pool to the Climate Forward program and Verra’s development of PCUs are part of a larger trend of creative solutions being designed to help reforestation efforts meet the growing demand for nature-based solutions. I am excited to see these efforts by CAR and Verra and look forward to seeing even more future innovative solutions that will support these types of opportunities. The more we can reduce the hurdles of nature-based projects, the more our planet benefits.

About the Author

David Chen is passionate about nature-based and blue carbon project development. From replanting bald cypress trees in the Mississippi River delta to reestablishing mangroves forests in international countries, David knows the positive impact these projects have on biodiversity and coastal resiliency to improving local livelihoods. David is a Program Development Manager at ClimeCo and has a Master of Environmental Management from Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment and received his Bachelor of Science from the University of California, Riverside.

Key Takeaways From NACW

by: Greg Cesare | May 25, 2022

Why Should You Know About North American Carbon World?

Along with several ClimeCo colleagues, I had the pleasure of attending the nineteenth annual North American Carbon World (NACW) conference held April 6-9th in Anaheim, California. As we have in the past, ClimeCo was one of the event’s corporate sponsors. While the 2021 virtual NACW conference offered a unique opportunity for attendees to learn and participate, we were excited to be in person again. NACW provides a fantastic opportunity for participants in the carbon markets to experience great panels of speakers and catch up with old friends and make some new ones.

For those unfamiliar with NACW, it is a premier event in North America focused on climate policy and carbon markets. This year’s conference included over 720 attendees, representing 14 countries. The conference attracts stakeholders from various backgrounds and industries, including project developers, verification bodies, non-profits, international carbon registries, government, community members, academia, carbon finance, technology startups, and Fortune 500 companies. The conference attendees share a common goal of addressing the climate crisis through innovative solutions.

It was an incredible couple of days spent meeting with stakeholders in the carbon markets. Truly one of the most rewarding aspects of the conference was getting to know what drives these stakeholders and their interest in various aspects of the market. The wide range of topics, including natural climate solutions, digital assets, and policy outlooks, brought together a diverse group of experts. Reflecting on the conference, I have a few key takeaways:

Supporting Voluntary Carbon Market Growth

The voluntary carbon market continues to grow significantly, and much of the growth is driven by corporate sustainability goals. How the voluntary market responds to the demands from corporate buyers will be of critical importance to sustain its momentum. While country-level commitments made through the Paris Agreement, for example, play a vital role, the voluntary market provides a tremendous opportunity to utilize the financial power of the private sector to address the climate crisis at the urgent pace required.

As highlighted in the panel discussion, “State and Future of the North American Voluntary Carbon Market,” whom ClimeCo’s Director of Program Management, Lauren Mechak participated, the voluntary market is well designed to support innovation to capitalize on the financial power of the private sector. Many innovations are being developed that require carbon finance to be commercially viable. For example, unique project types and emerging technologies in remote sensing and blockchain technology are being explored for implementation in carbon projects and the carbon market. The flexibility of the voluntary market is built to support these innovations, but it is vitally important that it’s done correctly by adhering to the principles and standards required for high-quality offsets.

Projects Must Deliver Quality, Transparency, and Accountability

A key aspect of supporting the market growth is the demand from credit buyers and the public for a transparent and high-quality process. Investors demand projects that ensure real and permanent greenhouse gas emission reductions. Transparency in how carbon offset methodologies are created, projects are developed, and credits are verified is vitally important to ensuring the continued growth of the voluntary market.

One of my favorite panel discussions focused on Driving High-Quality Standards in Carbon Markets. This panel highlighted initiatives in the carbon market focused on bringing increased transparency into project activities. Efforts to develop tools that assist market participants with evaluating what a “good” offset project looks like are underway, such as the Carbon Credit Quality Initiative. These initiatives aim to enhance the integrity of carbon credits by providing independent and easily understood scoring of carbon credits.

Corporate buyers also provided their perspectives regarding the challenges they face in evaluating carbon offset projects. Many simply do not have the expertise to adequately review lengthy project description documents and understand the underlying assumptions of the project and the methodology upon which the project was established. The level of detail provided in the publicly available documentation can be challenging for buyers and much of the general population to understand on their own. Some individual companies can bring expertise in-house to evaluate the quality of an offset credit. However, experts within the carbon market have an opportunity to provide simplified guidance on what a “good” carbon credit looks like. Initiatives that create tools and simplify access to information make it easier to understand what’s behind a given project, which provides the confidence for projects they are supporting – delivering real and permanent climate impacts.

As a project developer, ClimeCo always strives to provide as much transparency as possible. We participate in widely trusted and recognized carbon registries, such as the Climate Action Reserve, Verra, Gold Standard, and the American Carbon Registry. Carbon registries play an essential role in addressing transparency and quality. The voluntary market relies heavily on registries and verifiers to demonstrate the validity of an offset. These registries provide the public opportunities to comment on our projects and review summary information about their design and performance. I believe the discussions regarding simplifying publicly available information will lead to an even more transparent and trusted process. Our projects must also undergo independent verification before issuing carbon offset credits. The independence of verification bodies and carbon registries is vital for ensuring the quality of carbon offset projects and maintaining the integrity of the growing carbon market.

Co-Benefits of Carbon Projects

My final takeaway from the conference is that the projects being developed worldwide provide value beyond their carbon impact. It’s sometimes easy to be consumed by the impact a particular project will have on the climate; however, there are many co-benefits to carbon projects which improve the lives of the community members in which they are situated.

The inspiring story of the Yurok Tribe highlighted the co-benefits of these projects. Panelist Javier Kinney of the Yurok Tribe described the important impacts that offset revenues provided to their local communities. The tribe has been able to finance the repurchase of ancestral territory by utilizing carbon revenues. They have also used revenues from carbon sequestration projects to support the reintroduction of two condors (North America’s largest terrestrial bird) back into their ancestral lands. The condor is a sacred species to the Yurok Tribe, and this was the first time the birds will have taken flight in their former range since 1892¹. Their incredible story demonstrates the power carbon projects have to change the environment and support community building.

Conclusion

Being in a room with over 700 people interested in carbon markets and how they can shape the future of the climate crisis was inspirational. Participants from all across the world and from diverse industry backgrounds highlighted the increasing interest in the market. As highlighted at the conference, with increased interest comes increased scrutiny.

NACW was a great reminder of the importance of the fundamentals of project development in the carbon market. To ensure market integrity, we must remain vigilant regarding the types of projects we engage in. Demonstration of additionality, leakage considerations, and carbon storage permanence are always key factors in our decision to develop a project. The conference also highlighted aspects such as co-benefits that project developers should be searching for and creating through their project implementation.

As our project portfolio expands, ClimeCo’s project development team continues to implement processes to ensure high quality and transparency. This includes registering projects with highly trusted carbon registries, engaging with broad stakeholder groups, developing publicly available project description documents, and verifications through independent auditing bodies. These fundamentals were always the core of our project development, and the conference confirmed their importance to market integrity.

Our projects have the potential to improve the communities and ecosystems of so many places around the world. ClimeCo’s Project Development Team is committed to developing high-quality carbon projects. Our core value of strong engagement with our project partners, local stakeholders, carbon registries, and credit buyers elevates the quality and transparency in which our projects operate. We’re looking forward to participating in the growth to come and supporting initiatives that maintain the integrity of the markets.

About the Author

Greg Cesare is the Director of Project Management within ClimeCo’s Project Development Team. He is located in State College, PA. Greg and the Project Management team provide implementation and long-term management of ClimeCo’s portfolio of environmental commodity projects.

« Older Entries

Glossary

A Concrete Path to Decarbonizing Cement

A Concrete Path to Decarbonizing Cement

Emerging Efforts to Address Reforestation’s Most Challenging Problem

Emerging Efforts to Address Reforestation’s Most Challenging Problem

Key Takeaways From NACW

Key Takeaways From NACW

Sources

Additional Resources