Climate progress the honest way

The buying of carbon credits to offset a company’s emissions is getting a whole lot more transparent to prevent greenwashing.

|
AP/file
The sun sets near a coal-fired power plant on the Yangtze River in Nantong, China. Chinese power companies bid for credits to emit carbon dioxide and other climate-changing gases on a national carbon exchange.

In recent years, richer and poorer nations have sought better ways to share the burden of solving climate change. One tool is carbon credits, which enable companies in one part of the world to offset their greenhouse emissions by investing in conservation and renewable energy projects elsewhere.

The market for these investments is growing rapidly, but they contain risks. A recent study published in the journal Science of 18 forest preservation projects in Africa, Asia, and South America, for instance, linked just 6% of the credits bought by foreign corporations to verifiable carbon reductions.

That may now be set to change. Governments and multinational agencies are instituting a raft of new measures to improve the effectiveness of carbon credits through better transparency. So are industry, scientific, and civil society groups. The push for these reforms is coming partly from the companies and investment banks buying them. Long accused of making false environmental claims about their operations – a practice known as greenwashing – many are now demanding greater honesty and accountability in projects they fund.

“I’ve been a regulator in the United States for 21 years, and this is the first time that industry comes in and they ask for more regulation,” Christy Goldsmith Romero, commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, told Bloomberg.

Carbon credits are financial instruments. They enable large-scale emitters to reduce their carbon footprints by saving forests or funding projects like solar farms. Each credit represents 1 ton of carbon. Companies buy credits from green projects to offset their emissions ton for ton. Most funds flow from the wealthier Global North to the Global South. Uncertainty has undermined demand. Until now, there has been little oversight or consistency in the way credits are valued, issued, or used.

Last month, the Biden administration set new requirements for what U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen called “high-integrity” carbon markets. They follow similar plans in recent months from the European Union, the United Nations, and individual governments.

The new rules and guidelines may encourage more robust investment by giving companies more confidence in the credits they buy. More importantly, they are meant to reduce corruption and greenwashing through public scrutiny.

“Transparency is a prerequisite” for solving climate change, wrote researchers at the French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment in a paper published in Nature Sustainability in March. Accurate information on carbon trading, they note, is crucial for scientific research, honest governance, and equality for ordinary citizens.

As the global push toward a postcarbon future gathers momentum, the demand for carbon credits is growing. Morgan Stanley projects the market to increase from $2 billion in 2020 to $100 billion by 2030. That growth coincides with another trend. A report by the financial firm MCSI last month noted that corporations’ voluntary disclosure of their carbon credit trading is “already higher than is often assumed, and transparency is set to improve further.” Tom Montag, CEO of Rubicon Carbon, which is a carbon credit management firm, explained why. To accelerate financing for projects to mitigate climate change, he told Bloomberg, “you need to build trust.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Climate progress the honest way
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2024/0611/Climate-progress-the-honest-way
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe