NewClimate Institute’s Post

Join me next Tuesday at 2PM in this webinar hosted by Carbon-Free Europe where we will be discussing the implications and consequences of the European Commission proposal of a new 2040 Climate Target. I will be particularly focusing on what a 90% GHG emissions reductions target by 2040 could mean for EU industry and households. As a prelude: an ambitious target can lead to greater competitiveness and security with an accelerated deployment of #cleantech and high #energyefficiency gains. Meanwhile you can check this article we put together at Climate Strategy & Partners where we outline how a 2040 target proposal should be further developed under a coherent and long-term competitive sustainability strategy 👉 https://lnkd.in/emtnhF3B To register for the webinar 👉 https://lnkd.in/ech_sPSX

🎉 We were pleased to see Luxembourg and France calling for separate targets in the EU 2040 climate framework during ENVI Council discussions this week. Both countries demanded that the 2040 EU climate target includes a clear distinction between gross emissions reductions, natural sinks and technological removals. 👍 Germany also called for transparency over the contribution of natural and technological sinks towards the 2040 target, while the Netherlands stressed the need for a well designed carbon removals mechanism to ensure they are not used to bypass emissions reductions. 👉 A clear separation of targets and policies for emissions reduction, land based sequestration and permanent removals is what Carbon Market Watch asked to the European Commission earlier this year in our open letter signed by more than 100 organisations and scientists: https://lnkd.in/enhm2Fv7 📰 As explained in our Bare necessities briefing (https://lnkd.in/d6RhefV7), setting separate targets is a prerequisite for a sensible EU carbon removal policy. 📢 We call on other EU member states to embrace the separation of targets approach to enhance transparency and accountability, limit an extremely risky overreliance on land sinks and permanent removals, and enable ‘action on all fronts’ as called for by UN Secretary General António Guterres on World Environment Day (https://lnkd.in/ewRCh4eF).  

Read my new op-ed in Reuters, co-authored with Mandy Rambharos, Vice President, Global Climate Cooperation at Environmental Defense Fund on Science Based Targets initiative’s proposal to recognize carbon credits. We outline why the potential for SBTi to update the scope 3 guidance and their Net Zero Standard marks a significant milestone in the global battle against climate change. As we set out in the article, one of the most significant challenges companies face in delivering on their science-based targets lies in how they estimate emissions, set targets, and demonstrate progress towards cutting so-called 'Scope 3 emissions'. These emissions, from suppliers and the use of products, are on average 11 times higher than a company’s direct emissions and are the most critical factor in determining whether a company reaches its target.     However, more than 94% of companies currently use generic spend-based emission factors to estimate their Scope 3 emissions. In practice, this makes it nearly impossible for the current system to effectively measure and reward companies for the direct impact of their investments to reduce value-chain emissions. In a time when action on climate is paramount, entrenching ourselves in a system that fails to recognize immediate action makes little sense. We need mechanisms that incentivize action and reward progress in real-time.    Read the full op-ed in Reuters: https://lnkd.in/dC-p5JJJ 

Carbon credits help to monetise cost-effective action to deliver net zero, but they are not properly recognised in emissions reporting in the time frame needed. María at We Mean Business Coalition and Mandy at Environmental Defense Fund scribed the timely Reuters op-ed on Science Based Targets initiative below. I share their view that the time has arrived for high quality credits (with guardrails) to be recognised by voluntary target and reporting initiatives. Let’s incentivise a multi-trillion dollar race to the top. #carboncredits #sbti #netzero #climateaction

Will the Swedish government's climate policy action plan contain sufficient measures to address the increasing emissions? Recently, John Hassler presented his study on how Sweden's climate policy should be developed based on the new EU climate legislation #Fitfor55. Göran Finnveden, a Professor of Environmental Strategic Analysis, and Mattias Höjer, an Environmental Strategies and Futures Studies Professor at Kungliga Tekniska högskolan, reviewed the report and highlighted a few concerns in a detailed commentary: https://lnkd.in/dWFKeeKa "Questions remain about increased #emissions, negative system effects and distorted cost allocation, as a result of the proposals and investments aimed at reducing #climate effects." #hassler #climatepolicy #environmentalresearch

Interested in science-based targets, net-zero targets, or climate credits, offsets, or compensation? Science Based Targets initiative currently has an open public consultation for "Beyond Value Chain Mitigation" of GHG emissions. This consultation will help SBTi set up the standards and guidance related to mitigation of GHG emissions outside of organization's scope 1, 2, or 3 emissions. E.g. via purchased REDD+ credits or investing in direct air capture. The deadline is July 30th 2023 and you can read more about participating in the short consultation survey here: https://lnkd.in/eYAACp5z You can also hear more about the consultation in SBTi's recent webinar: https://lnkd.in/eZvye_bV

🎯 The European Commission is set to unveil its proposed climate target for 2040 on 6 February. Early discussions and statements by Commissioners Hoekstra and Šefčovič have suggested a target of a 90% emissions reduction. However, the European Commission’s proposal will undergo the ordinary legislative procedure, with the European Parliament and the Council of the EU expected to provide input and negotiate a compromise. 💬 On 15 January, EU Environment ministers gathered for their first Council meeting of the year to exchange views on the topic, alongside discussions on resilience to climate disruptions and risks. 👉 At this stage, however, it is difficult to anticipate where the Council’s opinion will land. 🔎 Read EERA’s full analysis: https://lnkd.in/e29wfFie

The landscape of climate policies is like the bottom of the ocean: dark, deep and scary 😬 But I tried to write a few words about how it looks in my newsletter post. The work needed to craft successful climate regulations is probably the most demanding one in this field. If you’re working in the climate policy space (or know someone who does) and would like to share your thoughts, drop a comment here below 💬👇

The results of the EU 2040 Climate Target public consultation are out. What can we learn about #carbonremoval? Setting three separate targets was the most supported climate target design: one for emission reductions, another for nature-based removals, and a third one for industrial removals. "Most respondents (54%) advocated for three separate targets for GHG emission reductions, nature-based carbon removals, and industrial removals. Especially civil society organisations (70%) and academic/research institutions (70%) strongly supported three separate targets. In contrast, SMEs, large companies and public authorities diverged more in their responses." Separate targets will be crucial in making sure that scaling up removals doesn't take efforts away from the priority - reducing emissions. However, the devil is in the details, and separate targets can still be interpreted and designed in various ways. That's the lesson we already learned with the EU's 2030 target. The European Commission's proposal on the EU's 2040 climate target will come out in spring 2024. Let's see how much they will follow the advice from the public consultation. Links in the comments.

Companies rarely disclose underlying calculations for their science-based emission reduction targets and the targets themselves lack important details. “Increased transparency is needed for corporate science-based targets to be effective” has just been published by Anders Bjørn in the journal Nature Climate Change. This 4–page article explains how companies commit to doing their part to meet the Paris Agreement’s temperature goal through science-based targets (SBTs), presents the Science Based Target Initiative (SBTi) and its target-approval scheme, and argues why increased transparency is necessary to assess justice implications, evaluate the sufficiency of aggregate emission reductions and hold companies accountable for actions on their targets. The article is accessible here : https://lnkd.in/eE99WbB8 Free access : https://rdcu.be/dhkN9