Minyoung Hwang

A great carbon grab ahead? Supply chain carbon removal insetting programs are bubbling away just below the surface in the primary sector, left, right, and centre. Export market access, customer pressure, regulation and compliance are motivating like never before. The reality is that a finite pool of carbon removals on private farmland is available to benefit these processors. In a fairly short period of time, this will become a competitive space... and an opportunity for farmers to generate and diversify revenue streams and build more resilient businesses. But not all carbon programs are created equal. Farmers need to make sure they’re not getting locked into programs that are unfair or unethical. That’s a carbon grab. Farmers need to keep control of their carbon - to decide who gets what carbon, from where and when. That's carbon sovereignty. It’s fantastic to see carbon opportunities outside of the ETS. Non-ETS-eligible native forests in New Zealand play a vital role and are under enormous pressure from pests. It’s tough out there right now, yet despite this, the landholders I’m talking to are still searching for ways to generate income, to help them protect and restore these precious ecosystems. Supply chain carbon removal programs are one of these options. I’m going to spend some time on this topic in the next few months. One of the things I love about CarbonCrop is that we’ve always been about making sure landholders have the information they need to make the best decisions for themselves, their businesses, and their land. This now extends across the primary sector, making sure those creating supply chain carbon removal programs have the information they need to build something fair and sustainable (in both senses of the word). If you're interested, we’ll discuss this at an upcoming CarbonCurious webinar. Registration link in comments. Or follow along. Plenty more to come. #carbonremoval #insetting #supplychain #primarysector #carbongrab

27

1 Comment

The number one question I'm asked (and maybe the biggest point of confusion when it comes to climate strategy): What’s the difference between Carbon Neutral and Net Zero❔ The headline advice in navigating the two: ➡ A Carbon Neutral business has measured and offset its carbon footprint. It's an action taken now and doesn't necessarily entail reducing emissions. ➡ A business committed to Net Zero intends to significantly reduce its emissions and offset the residual. It's a stronger, long-term commitment. Sounds simple enough, right? So, why the confusion? Well, for the above Net Zero definition we’ve relied on the Science Based Targets Initiative. The SBTi works to align businesses on what balance of emissions reduction vs. offsetting should be used in a Net Zero commitment. You can think of the SBTi’s Net Zero as a best practice definition - the one that will help us limit warming to 1.5°C (per the IPCC’s guidance). The SBTi’s Net Zero requires significant (90%) emissions reduction. However, it turns out that, outside of the SBTi, Net Zero and Carbon Neutral have been used almost interchangeably. From the UK Government’s Net Zero target to definitions in IPCC reports, Net Zero simply means a ‘netting-off’ of emissions. Check out the glossary of the IPCC’s Special Report (2018) and you’ll see this: 'Carbon Neutrality - See Net Zero CO2 emissions' What's the controversy? Why do these definitions matter? Offsetting has been getting some stick. Criticism centres around businesses investing in offsets without seriously planning to reduce emissions. If we are to limit global warming, offsetting alone is a dangerous strategy, as it means relying on our ability to massively scale-up technologies such as carbon capture. (This is simplistic - there are lots of reasons our current approach to resource extraction is a bad idea). However, demonising offsetting is also a bad strategy. High quality, verified offsetting projects are an effective way to combat climate change (e.g. investing in renewable energy infrastructure or bolstering carbon sinks through tree planting), provided they’re paired with reduction. Taking this into account, here’s three top tips: 1️⃣ Say what you mean -> do your bit to stop the confusion proliferating by explaining exactly what you have done or plan to do. Don’t rely on your audience understanding the terms you use. What do you mean by Net Zero? Is your target SBTi-aligned? 2️⃣ Prioritise emissions reduction -> Setting an SBTi-aligned Net Zero target will mean you aim to reduce emissions. 3️⃣ Don’t fear high-quality offsetting -> If you invest in verified projects, offsets are a great way to have additional impact as you work toward your emissions reduction goal. If you’re looking for a nuts-and-bolts explainer, give this a read 👇 https://lnkd.in/esXKUzNx

17

That's a wrap on Series 5 of the Climate Pioneers Show 🎤 It was such a joy deep diving into the world of 'Angel Investing for Impact' We covered all aspects of investing including: 💡 Why climate is a savvy investment strategy. 💡 The lack of gender diversity in the angel community. 💡 Why angel investment is an important source of capital for Founders. 💡 How to build (and execute) an angel fundraising strategy. 💡 How to prepare for due diligence. 💡 The legal aspects of raising angel investment. 💡 How to start your own angel investing journey. If you missed any of the episodes - they're all on YouTube, Spotify & Apple Podcasts - please go back and listen! 🎧 (Links in the comments below) And please 'follow' the Climate Pioneers Show to get updates when Series 6 launches this Summer. Watch this space 👀

7

2 Comments