Part IV: Conclusion

If you missed Part III of our series, read it here.

By Dr Jennifer Jenkins, Chief Science Officer, Rubicon Carbon

Back to basics: the key word here is voluntary. Because there is no enforcement mechanism to ensure every global firm decarbonizes at the same pace, unnecessarily restricting the use of carbon credits does not increase corporate ambition. Rather, it decreases climate action because the lack of flexibility encourages companies to abandon goals they simply cannot hit. Meanwhile, a lot of good climate action goes unfunded.?

The world faces an unprecedented challenge: how do we swap out the fossil-fueled engine of the global economy in midflight? How can we achieve net zero through entirely voluntary commitments? Al Gore has referred to this challenge as a global sustainability revolution, a sea change in our society that requires “the scale and impact of the industrial revolution, coupled with the speed of the digital revolution.” The answer must not be to ban carbon credits but rather to insist on their high-integrity use as complementary tools alongside decarbonization activities.

We no longer have the luxury of operating with an “either-or” approach to climate mitigation: we must adopt a “yes and” mindset. Given the precarious state of our efforts to fight climate change, we need, to quote UN Secretary António Guterres, to do “everything, everywhere, all at once.”?

Our roadmap to net zero must be based on realistic scenarios and pragmatic solutions rather than theoretical and ideological frameworks divorced from the practical concerns of finance and economics. Our net zero pathways must be flexible enough to accommodate unforeseen events and market changes.?

We all share the same goal: let’s get practical about reaching it, rather than creating unnecessary barriers that stall climate action and limit access to the climate finance we know we need.?

If you missed Part I of our series, read it here.