Read more in the September 6 edition of Invert Insights.
In a new, peer-reviewed report titled Demystifying carbon removals in the context of offsetting for sub-global net-zero targets, researchers critically examine the growing debate surrounding the use of carbon credits, particularly the distinctions between Emission Reduction Credits (ERCs) and Carbon Removal Credits (CRCs), in the context of achieving net-zero emissions at sub-global levels, such as national or corporate scales.
The research shares that “on a global scale, the definition of net-zero emissions is undisputable: any remaining GHG emissions must be counterbalanced by GHG removals. In only a few years, however, net-zero emissions have evolved from a physical climate science formulation into a central principle for climate action by entities on several levels, ranging from global to national and corporate.”
The paper identifies a common misconception in the climate science community: the belief that only CRCs are suitable for achieving sub-global net-zero targets, while ERCs are inadequate. Proponents of this view argue that net-zero requires physical balancing of emissions, and therefore only CRCs, which directly remove carbon, can fulfill this requirement. However, the authors of the paper challenge this notion by applying established GHG accounting principles.
The paper critiques the flawed application of GHG accounting principles that has led to the widespread belief that only CRCs are suitable for net-zero targets. They argue that both ERCs and CRCs can contribute equally to sub-global net-zero goals because they both prevent the net transfer of GHGs to the atmosphere. The key issue, they contend, lies in the improper setting of assessment boundaries, leading to incorrect conclusions about the effectiveness of ERCs versus CRCs. When accounting is done correctly, including all relevant sources and sinks, ERCs and CRCs have the same limiting impact on atmospheric GHG accumulation.
Even with this in mind, the choice between ERCs and CRCs still matters. While the atmospheric impact of ERCs and CRCs may be equivalent, the choice between them carries other implications. Carbon removals are essential for achieving global net-zero, especially in the presence of residual emissions. As such, CRCs need to be scaled up significantly to meet future demands. However, the paper also highlights the benefits of ERCs, including lower costs, co-benefits like improved air quality, and the potential to drive technological innovation in emission reductions.
The paper discusses the future of offsetting in a net-zero world, where residual emissions remain. Some experts argue that in such a scenario, only CRCs will be relevant, as ERCs would no longer contribute to net-zero goals. However, the authors suggest that there could still be a role for ERCs in a net-zero world, particularly in situations where ERCs are more cost-effective or where CRCs have significant trade-offs with other sustainability goals.
The paper concludes that both types of credits can be used to achieve net-zero emissions at sub-global scales, provided that proper accounting methods are applied. The authors call for more rigorous and scientifically sound guidance for policymakers and carbon market stakeholders, emphasizing that the choice between ERCs and CRCs should be based on comprehensive GHG accounting rather than misconceptions.
Invert Insights.
💡 This research has significant implications for the design and implementation of net-zero strategies, particularly in how entities choose to offset their emissions. The authors advocate for a balanced approach that considers both ERCs and CRCs as valid tools in the pursuit of global climate goals.
💡 This new research further highlights the importance of due diligence and proper consideration when considering offsetting emissions that would not otherwise be abatable. As the voluntary carbon market is still in its early stages and there’s a lack of broad-reaching rules and regulations, vigorous auditing and analysis is a must when putting any offsetting mechanism in place, especially if the intent is to make a net-zero emissions claim.
💡 The report once again underscores the need for a holistic approach to global emissions reductions; a hypothesis we’ve seen proven out time and time again. There is no silver bullet for carbon reduction, instead, we need a concerted and consistent approach that considers multiple, complementary levers to meet global climate goals.
