In the global endeavour to mitigate climate change, carbon credits have emerged as an indispensable mechanism, providing companies with a tangible means to counterbalance their environmental footprints. These credits are not merely symbolic; they play a pivotal role in the collective journey towards achieving a net-zero future. In this scenario, the volume of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere is meticulously offset by an equivalent amount that is either prevented from being emitted or actively removed.
Carbon credits embody a straightforward yet potent concept. When companies invest in these credits, they are essentially funding projects dedicated to the reduction or sequestration of carbon emissions. This process allows these organisations not only to compensate for their unavoidable environmental impacts but also, in more ambitious and commendable instances, to attain a status that is effectively carbon-neutral.
The marketplace for carbon credits is not static; it is dynamic and expanding at an accelerated pace. This growth is accompanied by the inception and gradual implementation of various initiatives, each designed to establish and enforce a set of rules and standards. The objective of these standards is to enhance the credibility, reliability, and overall effectiveness of carbon credits as a tool for environmental conservation.
It is crucial for stakeholders to recognise that carbon credits are not a monolithic entity; they are diverse, with each type of credit offering distinct environmental benefits. The carbon credit market is nuanced, comprising three primary types of credits, each of which corresponds to and facilitates specific outcomes related to climate action. Firstly, there are reduction credits. These are designed to provide support to projects that have the potential to curtail carbon emissions swiftly and substantially. An example of such an initiative would be one that facilitates the transition from reliance on fossil fuels to the adoption and use of renewable sources of energy.
Reduction credits play a significant role in financing the development and deployment of clean, sustainable infrastructure. This is particularly important in regions of the world that are disproportionately affected by the adverse effects of climate change, yet lack the requisite resources to invest in and develop infrastructure that is both resilient and low in carbon emissions. Then there are protection credits. These credits have a different focus; they are aimed at preserving and safeguarding existing natural carbon sinks. Examples of these sinks include forests and peatlands, each of which is invaluable not only for their ability to store carbon but also as biodiverse ecosystems.
Protection credits serve as incentives for the conservation of these vital ecosystems. They also provide support to communities that reside in and depend on these areas, fostering a relationship of stewardship and sustainable living. Lastly, there are removal credits. These credits are allocated to fund initiatives whose objective is to actively and systematically remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This category of credits is crucial for addressing and neutralising emissions that are either extremely challenging or fundamentally impossible to prevent or reduce. By understanding and differentiating between these various types of credits based on their intended and actual outcomes, stakeholders can ensure that investments are channelled effectively and efficiently towards projects that align with and advance specific, predetermined climate goals.
With the growing urgency to counteract climate change, carbon credits have come into the spotlight, acting as permits that allow holders to emit a specified amount of greenhouse gases. Typically, one credit equates to the emission of one tonne of carbon dioxide or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases. These credits are integral to cap-and-trade programs. In this framework, companies are allocated credits permitting a certain level of emissions. Should their emissions exceed this cap, they are obliged to purchase additional credits. Conversely, if emissions are kept below the allocated level, surplus credits can be sold to other entities.
This system provides a twofold incentive for companies to curtail their emissions. Firstly, companies exceeding their emission caps bear additional financial burdens by having to acquire extra credits. Secondly, entities that successfully diminish their emissions below the cap can monetise their efforts by selling unused credits. Proponents of the carbon credit system assert that it facilitates measurable and verifiable reductions in emissions from certified climate action projects, playing a pivotal role in the reduction, removal, or avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions.
The global carbon credit market is substantial, with its total size approximated at £215.5 billion, representing around 10.3 Gt CO2 equivalent traded in compliance markets in 2020. This market is not only extensive but also dynamic, adapting to various global initiatives and legislative measures aimed at climate change mitigation. For instance, the Inflation Reduction Act, enacted in August 2022, is a landmark legislation expected to positively influence the carbon credit market. This act is multifaceted, addressing a range of issues including deficit reduction, inflation combatting, and carbon emission reduction.
A significant provision within the act rewards companies that either store greenhouse gases underground or utilise them for the production of other products. These companies are entitled to expanded tax credits, increasing from £37 to £63 for each metric ton of captured carbon stored underground, and from £26 to £45 for each ton of captured carbon used in other processes or for oil recovery. This enhanced incentive structure is anticipated to stimulate more significant efforts towards carbon capture, addressing previous criticisms that the tax incentive, identified as 45Q, was not substantial enough to render carbon capture projects economically viable.
The unfolding narrative of carbon credits is one of dynamic debate, with perspectives oscillating between sceptical critique and hopeful endorsement. Major corporations, including the likes of Microsoft and Shopify, have channelled substantial investments into Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies. These entities, alongside the U.S. government, are not merely passive observers but active participants, with plans underway to directly procure services related to CDR.
Carbon removal technologies, encompassing Direct Air Capture (DAC) and Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), have found themselves at the centre of controversy. On one hand, there are detractors who view these technologies as costly, resource-intensive, and ultimately, inefficient at executing substantial carbon removal. Critics advocate for diverting the funds currently allocated to these 'technofixes', recommending instead that resources be funnelled into tried-and-tested solutions such as renewable energy, energy efficiency initiatives, and tree planting.
Yet, there is a chorus of voices within the scientific and business communities that sing a different tune, expressing steadfast support for carbon removal technologies. These proponents argue that these technologies are indispensable, especially when it comes to addressing historical emissions and sectors where abatement of emissions is a notoriously challenging endeavour. The consensus among supporters is that every available option, carbon removal technologies included, must be meticulously explored and utilised if the global community is to stand a chance at limiting global warming to the thresholds established in the Paris Agreement.
Ewan Jones, a notable figure in the carbon trading platform, is a vocal advocate for carbon removal, underscoring its importance in dealing with the surplus of CO2 that currently saturates the atmosphere. In his view, while traditional carbon credits are effective at preventing emissions, carbon removal technologies play a proactive role, actively working to diminish existing levels of atmospheric CO2. This approach is crucial, not just for offsetting ongoing emissions, but for addressing the legacy of historical emissions, offering a tangible pathway to mitigating the impacts of climate change.
Despite the swirling controversies, there is a concerted effort underway to bolster both the integrity and effectiveness of carbon credits and associated technologies. Initiatives are being rolled out to enhance the credibility of these projects, with innovative methodologies like geospatial mapping being deployed to monitor forests more effectively and calculate baselines with greater accuracy.
In the grand tapestry of carbon credits, the future is woven with threads of both challenge and opportunity, criticism and support. The discourse is ongoing, necessitating a balanced viewpoint that carefully weighs both the potential and the constraints of carbon credits and removal technologies in the global crusade against climate change.
We'll help you find the quality carbon credits you need, so you can focus on running your business.
All Rights Reserved | Decarbonate