Are corporate climate change watchdogs caving in to the industry?

The charity, which acts as the main watchdog of companies’ climate commitments, is facing claims that it is bowing to industry pressure to relax standards.

The Science-Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) evaluates corporate sustainability pledges and develops standards for how companies can set science-based goals to combat climate change. SBTi’s policy is intended to prevent greenwashing – making misleading statements about a company’s impact on the environment.

One way SBTi has attempted to crack down on greenwashing is by limiting the use of carbon offsets. Offsetting is considered offsetting some of a company’s carbon emissions. Even though it is often only reflected on paper and not in the real world. SBTi’s hardline stance on carbon offsets has drawn the ire of industry heavyweights and some policymakers who rely on offsets and who say SBTi’s standards are too difficult to meet.

The debate came to a head last week when SBTi issued an explosive statement that appeared to soften its stance on offsets, giving companies a potentially easier way to actually reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The conflict is not over yet, and the outcome could impact whether companies meet their climate commitments to use more renewable energy or more offsets.

Jeff Bezos and his billions of dollars appear to have played a role in this. Since 2020, when the e-commerce giant launched a $10 billion Earth Fund, Bezos has sought to reinvent himself as a major climate philanthropist, even as Amazon’s greenhouse gas emissions have soared. SBTi has been around since 2015, but the Bezos Earth Fund has become one of its major funders, receiving an $18 million grant in 2021.

At a conference hosted by the Bezos Earth Fund in London in March, lobbying groups said SBTi representatives were “inundated with implicit and direct requests to soften their stance on carbon offsets.” bloomberg I reported it over the weekend. It is said that the situation even became physical during a side conversation. bloomberg, when a “pro-offset attendee” grabbed an SBTi employee by the shoulder.

Earlier that month, SBTi removed more than 200 companies from its vetted list of corporate climate commitments, including well-known companies Microsoft, Unilever and Walmart. In 2023, SBTi delisted Amazon. Amazon’s CO2 emissions have increased nearly 40% since the company pledged in 2019 to reduce its pollution to net zero.

A few weeks after the meeting, on April 9, the SBTi Board of Directors issued a statement that sent shockwaves through the organization, announcing that at least one of its scientific advisors had resigned. Certificates representing carbon offsets can be used to address indirect emissions from the company’s supply chain and product use, the statement said. This is a big problem because these indirect emissions (also known in technical terms as Scope 3 emissions) often make up the largest portion of a company’s carbon footprint.

The backlash was quick. Employees reportedly wrote letters to SBTi’s CEO and board members who support the recent statement demanding they resign from their positions. Reuters. The board did not follow protocols for changing SBTi’s standards, they said.

Days later, the board issued a “clear statement” that the organization’s policies had not changed after all. Any formal changes would have to go through the group’s standard operating procedures, he said, and a draft proposal for “potential changes” to the guidance on indirect emissions would be forthcoming in July.

SBTi did not immediately respond. The VergeThis is a request for your opinion. A Bezos Earth Fund spokesperson said: bloomberg “I don’t make decisions. [SBTi]We were not on the board, nor were we on the board in the now infamous April 9th ​​statement.

The move to potentially expand the use of carbon offsets has gained some support. Reuters report. The group of 15 companies and non-profit organizations reportedly sent a letter to the Board of Directors saying, “These courageous changes by the SBTi Board of Directors will accelerate global climate action by providing more climate finance for the natural assets and communities of the Global South.” I lost.

Many carbon offset projects are based in economically developing countries where governments can make money from their efforts to plant trees that trap and store carbon dioxide. Carbon credits represent a metric ton of CO2 sequestered, and companies can claim those credits as evidence that they have offset a portion of their pollution.

However, ongoing surveys and studies show that many of these credits do not represent any actual emissions reductions at all. Often, projects overestimate the amount of carbon dioxide they can offset. Or the trees may not survive long enough to prevent CO2 from accumulating in the atmosphere and heating the planet. In other cases, tree farms may displace native plants, causing more ecological harm than good and negatively impacting the livelihoods of local communities that depend on those resources.

In light of all this evidence, some companies are starting to focus more attention on finding less polluting energy sources. For example, airlines are talking more about developing sustainable aviation fuel after being asked to buy low-quality carbon credits. Whether and in what direction SBTi continues to move the needle on the offset will depend on what steps you take next.