Charities, the main watchdogs of corporate climate commitments, face accusations of bowing to industry pressure to relax standards.
The Science-Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) assesses companies’ sustainability commitments and sets standards for how companies can set science-backed targets to address climate change. SBTi’s policy is designed to prevent “greenwashing,” in which companies make misleading statements about their environmental impact.
One way the SBTi is trying to combat greenwashing is by limiting the use of carbon offsets. Offsets are supposed to offset part of a company’s carbon footprint, although this is often reflected on paper rather than in the real world. SBTi’s tough stance on carbon offsets has sparked anger among industry bosses and some policymakers who rely on carbon offsets and say SBTi’s standards are too difficult to meet.
The debate between the two sides came to a head last week, with SBTi issuing an explosive statement that appeared to soften its stance on carbon offsets, offering companies a potentially easier way to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The conflict is far from over, and its outcome could influence whether companies’ commitments to climate change prompt them to use more renewable energy or greater offsets.
The conflict is far from over and its outcome could influence whether companies’ commitments to climate change prompt them to use more renewable energy or more offsets
It’s clear that Jeff Bezos and his billions appear to have played a role in this disaster. Since the e-commerce mogul launched his $10 billion Earth Fund in 2020, Bezos has tried to reinvent himself as a major climate philanthropist even as Amazon’s greenhouse gas emissions soared. SBTi has been around since 2015, but the Bezos Earth Fund became one of its major funders in 2021 with an $18 million grant.
At a conference hosted by the Bezos Earth Foundation in London in March, the lobby group made “a series of implicit and direct demands to SBTi representatives to relax their stance on carbon offsetting”. Bloomberg Weekend coverage. According to reports, things even got physical during a private conversation. Bloomberg, when a “pro-offset attendee” grabbed an SBTi staff member by the shoulders.
Earlier that month, SBTi removed more than 200 companies from its vetted list of corporate climate commitments, including high-profile names like Microsoft, Unilever and Walmart. In 2023, SBTi will also delist Amazon, whose CO2 emissions have increased by nearly 40% since the company pledged to reduce pollution to net zero in 2019.
Weeks after the meeting, on April 9, the SBTi board issued a statement that shocked the entire organization and led to the reported resignation of at least one scientific advisor. Certificates representing carbon offsets can be used to address indirect emissions caused by a company’s supply chain and the use of its products, the statement said. This is a big deal because these indirect emissions (called Scope 3 emissions in technical terms) often make up the largest portion of a company’s carbon footprint.
The rebound was quick.Employees reportedly wrote a letter calling for the resignation of the SBTi CEO and board members who supported the recent statement Reuters. They said the board did not follow protocol when changing the SBTi standards.
Days later, the board issued a “clarification statement” saying the organization’s policies had not changed at all. It said any official shift would have to go through the organization’s standard operating procedures and that draft proposals for “potential changes” to its indirect emissions guidance would be put forward in July.
SBTi did not immediately respond edgeRequest for comment.A spokesperson for the Bezos Earth Foundation told Bloomberg It “does not [SBTi]we do not serve on their board of directors and we had no involvement,” the board’s now-infamous April 9 statement.
Initiatives to potentially expand the use of carbon offsets do have some support, Reuters Report. A group of 15 companies and nonprofits reportedly sent a letter to the board saying, “This courageous shift by the SBTi board will accelerate global climate action by increasing climate finance for natural assets and local communities in the Southern Hemisphere.”
Many carbon offset projects are located in economically developing countries, where governments can make money by planting trees that capture and store carbon dioxide. Carbon credits represent one metric ton of carbon dioxide sequestered, and companies can use these credits as evidence that they have eliminated some of their own pollution.
However, ongoing surveys and studies have found that many of these credits do not represent real emissions reductions at all. Often, projects overestimate the amount of CO2 they can offset. Or the trees may not survive long enough to prevent carbon dioxide from accumulating in the atmosphere and causing the planet to heat up. In other cases, tree farms may displace native vegetation, cause more ecological harm than good, and negatively impact the livelihoods of communities that rely on these resources.
Given all this evidence, some companies have begun to focus more attention on finding less polluting energy sources. Airlines, for example, are talking more about developing sustainable aviation fuels after being criticized for buying low-quality carbon credits. Whether SBTi continues to move the pointer on the offset and in what direction depends on the next steps taken.