Green Element Group uses the Science Based Targets initiative’s (SBTi) Corporate Net-Zero Standard to underpin net-zero and decarbonisation strategies for corporate clients and partners.
We’re writing to update you about the controversial statement released by the Science Based Targets initiative Board of Trustees on the 9th April.
The SBTi Board of Trustees announced that SBTi signatories will be able to include the use of Environmental Attribute Certificates (EACs) as an abatement mechanism within its Corporate Net-Zero Standard, including carbon credits. EACs are instruments used to quantify, verify, and track the environmental benefits associated with climate mitigation activities or projects, otherwise known as carbon offsets. If or when this policy is implemented, the rules for achieving targets would drastically change, allowing companies to use carbon credits to “neutralise” or “abate” their scope 3 emissions as opposed to engaging with supply chains to collectively reduce.
This is a significant volte face and would undermine the validity and impact of companies’ targets, thus creating a false impression of global carbon reductions.
Green Element provides services that aspire to the highest level of integrity when it comes to addressing climate breakdown. SBTi has set the premier standard in the business world, aligning its targets with the IPCC’s 1.5C limit on global heating above pre-industrial levels by 2050, with no or low overshoot, and requiring actual emissions reductions as opposed to delegating some sort of ‘abatement’ to a third party through a marketplace. Because of this, our corporate decarbonisation strategy so far has been to adopt SBTi’s corporate framework with our clients and partners.
Green Element Group regards claiming carbon reductions through the use of offsets as greenwash at best, and at worst, as harmful to indigenous people and infringing climate justice principles. Offsets either remove no physical carbon at all, or do not remove the tonnage of carbon on their labels within a specified timeframe – unlike permanent, physical carbon removals – and they are significantly underpriced. The commercialisation of the voluntary offsets industry has created a global marketplace wide open to corruption and leading to unintended consequences for humanity and the planet. We have written extensively on this subject and you may read a summary of our findings here.
The SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard (v.2 of March 2024) makes clear that “the use of carbon credits must not be counted as emissions reductions toward the progress of companies’ near-term or long-term science-based targets. Carbon credits may only be considered as an option for neutralizing residual emissions or to finance additional climate mitigation beyond their science-based emission reduction targets.”
SBTi’s staff, Technical Council, Scientific Advisory Group, and Technical Advisory Group (of which I am a member) were not consulted about the Board of Trustee’s decision and announcement, and the statement by the trustees did not comply with the governance and decision-making processes to which the SBTi adheres. SBTi’s staff wrote an open letter to the Board of Trustees, of which the key points are as follows:
SBTi staff remain committed to developing quality, science-based standards through rigorous research, clear governance and procedures, and public consultation.
1. The SBTi Board of Trustees undermined the Standard Operating Procedures and governance processes.
2. The SBTi’s standards have not changed, and work is still underway to inform potential changes to the scope 3 framework.
3. They called for the statement to be withdrawn, and for the resignation of CEO Luiz Fernando do Amaral and any board members who supported the decision.
4. SBTi staff regret that this statement has caused concern and damaged the trust of critical stakeholders. Their intention is to produce only the most robust standards that ensure companies credibly mitigate their value chain emissions and align business practices with the transformation needed to reach net-zero and limit warming to no more than 1.5°C. We call upon our partners in the ecosystem to support our efforts in holding those responsible accountable.
In response to the call for support by SBTi staff, and as part of our remit to uphold the integrity of SBTi, some of the SBTi’s Technical Advisory Group (TAG) have also composed a letter sent to the Board of Trustees, expressing our concerns about the absence of due process and governance in this unilateral decision, and in support of the exemplary work of the SBTi staff.
We state: “The decision to allow the use of such environmental attribute certificates as a legitimate way to deliver “abatement” of scope 3 emissions as part of the SBTi framework is premature and not supported by any TAG or SAG recommendation.” You can read our letter by clicking below.
To understand the history and context relating to the announcement by SBTi’s Board of Trustees, please read this article by Patrick Greenfield (Biodiversity and Environment Report) and Fiona Harvey (Environment Editor) of The Guardian.
Green Element Group’s mission is to empower our clients to manage their environmental impacts for a just and sustainable world. The use of carbon credits within the SBTi’s Corporate Net-Zero Standard is not aligned with our mission or the collective efforts to credibly reduce the value chain emissions required to reach net-zero and limit the devastating impacts of global heating.
We will keep you updated on this issue and whether this policy change is to go ahead. In the meantime, nothing will change to the services and products we provide to your organisation.
If you have any questions, please do get in touch.
Best wishes,
Emma Littlewood I Green Element Group
Strategy Director