Derric N. Pennington, PhD'd的动态

We may look back on 9 April 2024 as a tipping point in perception of the (il)legitimacy of the Science Based Targets initiative, with the dual shit-show yesterday of 1) the release of the 3rd annual Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor by NewClimate Institute & Carbon Market Watch; and 2) the SBTi Board Statement greenlighting Scope 3 carbon credits (& other environmental attribute certificates). The former is actually just an extension of the previous 2 annual reports, documenting evidence of a significant mismatch between SBTi-validated company targets, and what the science says is actually necessary. https://lnkd.in/esnT9PkA The latter is far more damning, as it diverges significantly from scientific consensus -- and common sense. https://lnkd.in/esGAX_iT My understanding is that at least one member of the SBTi Board vehemently opposed the policy position shift (that seem to cater to SBTi's clients more than to its global rightsholders) -- but was obviously overridden Even more concerning, I understand that neither the Technical Council (TC) nor the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) were consulted on this radical policy shift -- which seems to contravene the TC Terms of Reference, requiring that the TC assesses all major policy decisions. My understanding is that at least one TAG member has already resigned in protest, and another TAG member is pressing SBTi hard for explanations. Stepping back, all of this is utterly unsurprising, as it fits into the larger patterns of SBTi's unethical actions. SBTi has a well established pattern of taking steps without disclosing the underlying evidence and analysis that would form the scientific basis for the step. In the absence of such evidence, it is literally impossible to independently verify if SBTi's decisions are scientifically valid (or not). This instance repeats this pattern. So from where I sit, SBTi's incompetent / insidious actions seem to continue to shoot itself in the foot, in ways that simultaneously shoot humanity in the heart. I was asked by a journalist today if I had any hopes that SBTi might change. I told them that I wish dearly that SBTi would change, and step into integrity, but that I have absolutely no evidence upon which to base this hope. All of the evidence I see is that SBTi is working in ways that, some day, may be found in a court of law to be crimes against humanity for knowingly obstructing the most robust actions to counteract the worst effects of climate change. The only silver lining here is that others seem to be waking up to SBTi's unethical actions, so perhaps a tipping point may not be too far away...

The recent developments surrounding the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), particularly highlighted by the latest Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor and the SBTi Board’s controversial endorsement of Scope 3 carbon credits, demand our immediate attention and reflection. These actions not only raise serious questions about the alignment of SBTi's policies with scientific consensus and necessary climate action but also underscore a troubling pattern of decision-making that lacks transparency and broad stakeholder consultation. It's concerning to hear reports of significant internal disagreement within the SBTi itself, including the Board's decision-making process and the apparent exclusion of the Technical Council and Technical Advisory Group from critical policy shifts. Such steps seem to diverge from the foundational principles of evidence-based decision-making and inclusive dialogue, essential for the credibility and effectiveness of any organization striving to lead on climate action. This moment could indeed be seen as a tipping point in how the broader community perceives SBTi's legitimacy and commitment to facilitating the urgent, science-aligned corporate action our planet desperately needs. The departure of members from the Technical Advisory Group in protest and the call for transparency and accountability are clear indicators of the depth of concern among those closely involved. As someone deeply invested in the integrity and success of climate action frameworks, my hope is that this moment serves as a catalyst for SBTi to reevaluate its approaches, enhance transparency, and realign with the scientific rigour and stakeholder inclusivity necessary for its mission. It's a pivotal time for introspection, not just for SBTi but for all stakeholders involved in the collective endeavour of addressing climate change. Let's advocate for and contribute to a course correction that brings SBTi's actions back in line with its vital global responsibility

I am delighted to share that the SBTi has released two new reports on beyond value chain mitigation (BVCM). The SBTi defines BVCM in our Corporate Net-Zero Standard as “mitigation action or investments that fall outside a company’s value chain, including activities that avoid or reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, or remove and store GHGs from the atmosphere.” BVCM occurs outside of company value chains and therefore does not reduce companies’ scope 1, 2 or 3 emissions. However, it plays an important role in allowing companies to help accelerate the global net-zero transformation, by enabling other economic and social actors to avoid, reduce or remove (GHG) emissions. Efforts to deliver BVCM must not replace or delay 1.5°C-aligned corporate value chain decarbonization. The two new reports are: ?‘Above and Beyond: An SBTi report on the design and implementation of BVCM’ provides suggestions to support companies in the design and implementation of BVCM strategies to accelerate progress towards global net-zero. ?‘Raising the Bar: An SBTi report on accelerating corporate adoption of BVCM’ explores the incentives for BVCM over which the broader climate ecosystem has influence, including civil society, academia, policymakers, standard setters, advocacy organizations and multilateral organizations. Additionally, we’re hosting a webinar on March 21 2024, at which I will provide an overview of the new reports followed by a live Q&A. ??Register for the webinar here:?https://lnkd.in/eyjTiSaN ??Head to our website to view the reports and find out more:?https://lnkd.in/e5agGuCA A HUGE thank you to the team and to our wonderful Expert Advisory Group members Alexander Farsan, Anita Otubu, Aman K Sidhu, Amir Safaei, Amir Sokolowski, Anshari Rahman, Astrid von Preussen, Bogolo Joy Kenewendo, Bhaskar Singh Karky, Brad Schallert, Candace V., carlijn nouwen, Chandra Shekhar Silori, Charlotte Streck, Christa Anderson, Chidi Oti Obihara, Daniel Zarin, Danick Trouwloon, David Burns, Derik Broekhoff, Diksha Somai Pillay, Disha Agarwal, Donna Lee, Maosheng Duan,

Last week, I had the privilege of representing neustark at a three-day advocacy deep dive in Brussels, organized by the Negative Emissions Platform, where we engaged in critical discussions with members of the European Commission and Parliament. Throughout these discussions, we had the opportunity to highlight the potential of Carbon Dioxide Removal (“CDR”) and to advocate for policies that support CDR innovation, including: ???The importance of setting separate targets for permanent CDR in the revision of the EU Climate Law. ???The need for immediate public and private funding to support a wide array of CDR technologies and enable scale-up, with funding schemes that are flexible and adaptable to the needs of emerging CDR solutions. ????The importance of creating a stable demand for carbon removals through a compliance market and long-term policy support, including public procurement policies to increase demand for recycled carbonated concrete in construction projects. This was a fantastic opportunity to promote policies that encourage and support neustark’s innovative solution, which captures biogenic CO? and stores it in demolition concrete — transforming the world’s largest waste stream into a carbon sink, permanently removing CO? from the atmosphere and generating negative emissions. A huge thank you to the Negative Emissions Platform team for making this happen and for all the hard work behind it. It is inspiring to see so many voices advocating for a stronger commitment to CDR in the EU’s climate leadership!

This week,?the Negative Emissions Platform Members?have gathered in Brussels for a series of discussions with EU policymakers. Over three days, NEP?held meetings?with influential figures in the European Commission, Parliament, and Council, who are instrumental in shaping the EU's approach to carbon removal (CDR). ? We highlighted key steps to strengthen Europe’s role in?CDR?and climate leadership: ?? ?The?importance of separate targets?for permanent CDR?in the revision of the EU Climate Law ??? The?need for immediate?public and private?funding?to?support the sector and begin scaling up ??? A call for a?compliance market for CDR?to drive meaningful action ? The message is clear: ? the time for action is now? Without decisive steps, the EU risks falling short of its climate targets and losing the chance to foster a thriving European CDR industry. ? For a deeper dive into our?key positions,?please?read NEP's paper on how carbon removals can bolster EU competitiveness: ?? https://lnkd.in/dU589qSG Thank you, Heirloom, Climeworks, Stockholm Exergi, Drax Group, Carbon Engineering, Rewind, neustark, Bioenergy Europe, ?rsted, Novocarbo, Carbo Culture, Carbonfuture, Isometric, Dansk Fjernvarme

The ECtHR finds violations of the Convention in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland due to insufficient measures to combat climate change In today's Grand Chamber judgment, the European Court of Human Rights, by a majority of sixteen votes to one, found Switzerland in violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and unanimously declared a violation of Article 6 § 1 (access to court). The case, brought forward by four women and the Swiss association Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, sheds light on the profound impact of climate change on individuals' lives, and the State's responsibility to address it. Despite concerns raised by these women regarding the adverse effects of global warming on their living conditions and health, the Swiss authorities were deemed to have failed to take sufficient action, contravening their duties under the Convention. The Court's judgment underscores the expansive interpretation of Article 8 of the Convention, which encompasses the right to effective protection by State authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change on lives, health, well-being, and quality of life. However, while the four individual applicants did not meet the victim-status criteria under Article 34 of the Convention, the applicant association was granted standing to bring the complaint on behalf of its members. For further insights into the Court's judgment and its implications, please refer to the ECHR's official press release and the Court's HUDOC database. Grand Chamber judgments take effect immediately and are transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of their execution. Information about the execution process can be found here: https://lnkd.in/e7FnsPwX.

In April 2024, top scientists and carbon experts convened at Yale to tackle the challenges of improving nature-based carbon crediting. Despite unresolved technical debates, they agreed on one crucial point: scaling carbon credits is essential to meet climate goals. They proposed five guiding principles—urgency, practicality, science-based methods, adaptability, and accountability—to ensure that this vital tool evolves responsibly and effectively. https://lnkd.in/eiTDy_3c

?? Reflecting on the Science Based Targets initiative's statement, the ICR acknowledges and supports the nuanced approach towards the use of "environmental attribute certificates", including those from VCMs, for Scope 3 emission abatement. This alignment with scientific rigour and comprehensive standards resonates with our mission to enhance confidence in the carbon market by ensuring environmental integrity and promoting scalable climate solutions. We view this development as an opportunity to further bridge our efforts in facilitating impactful climate projects with the broader objectives of science-based targets, driving both innovation and credible climate action. ??

?? "Article 8 must be seen as encompassing a right for individuals to effective protection by the State authorities from serious adverse effects of climate change on their life, health, well-being and quality of life". This is the headline conclusion from the European Court of Human Rights' judgment in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland. The case was brought by Swiss claimants who alleged that their government had not done enough to mitigate the effects of climate change. The Court found that Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) had been breached. The judgment is highly significant, and is likely to influence litigation against both governments and companies. Although related cases against France (Carême) and Portugal and 32 other states (Duarte Agostinho) failed on admissibility and jurisdiction grounds, it is the Swiss judgment which will be most closely scrutinized in the weeks and months ahead. We will be considering further the implications of this judgment for climate litigation in Europe. https://lnkd.in/egK2d28T

The Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) positioned itself as *the* standard for emissions reduction. It aims to help businesses set reduction targets in a "science based" way. But its reputation has taken a bruising this summer. Till now, it's been wildly successful and influential, despite concerns from some climate advocates about its approach. The U.S. Government even has proposed rules that mandate federal contractors set SBTi targets. SBTi aims to be guided by science. This claim offers a sense of clarity -- science is truth and who doesn't want truth? But its approach can belie the complexity of overlaying still-developing science on top of the entire global economy. And that not all scientists agree, especially when the science leaves the lab and hits the real world. The tensions in SBTi's mission came to a head this April, when SBTi's board said companies could use carbon offsets to meet Scope 3 commitments. There was a staff rebellion and public outcry, leading to the resignation of SBTi's CEO earlier this month. But the matter wasn't settled. Today, SBTi did itself no favors. It released new research that led to muddled headlines like this one from Reuters: "Corporate climate watchdog keeps lid on buying carbon offsets to meet climate targets." What? Basically, SBTi said it looked to the science for guidance--but the science was not yet clear, so it's holding on conclusions. The outcome is that SBTi's new corporate guidance won't be finalized till at least the end of 2025. Meanwhile, the world is moving on, governments are putting reporting requirements in place, and companies are doing their thing. This is unfortunate, because clarity *would* be good and leadership *is* needed. What are your reactions to SBTi's release?