The underappreciated role of carbon insets in decarbonizing Scope 3 supply chains
Usually a big fan - but I felt this one kind of glossed over a lot of things.
Participants agree on a standard / measuring? I’d hope there’s some kind of third party audit.
Similarly, you mention every scope 3 is someone’s scope 1, but a huge part of scope 3 is downstream emissions at the consumer level, and those seem conveniently left out here. Or can consumers generate credits by properly disposing / reusing?
Bravo on tackling the question of double/triple. I think there might be a solution here according to the value-added at each intermediate tier, but the accounting will be non-trivial.
Also worth noting that once you reach net-zero through insetting, farms are likely to still have potential for further nature-based solutions to go net positive in carbon sequestration and biodiversity. This net positive portion could be released as offset credits in the future.
Y'all I'm confused. How does this hold true for improvements based on carbon sequestration?
"Likewise, there’s no need for permanence ... because emissions removed through insets never occurred and therefore are inherently permanent and whole."
If you're only taking about avoided emissions then I agree, but if you're including carbon sequestration as a benefit a company is paying for, how can you not care about permanence?
Great article. In response to comment that "your scope 3 emissions are someone else's scope 1", that must also include the consumption patterns of consumers, not necessarily that of other businesses. That means there could be a role for governments to tax that scope 3 externality at the point of consumption. The challenge will be setting a carbon tax that isn't simply an arbitrary, catch-all amount.
Interesting article! However, I have a question:
The example of a farmer practicing regenerative agriculture sounds like it's just ("just" sounds unnecessarily pejorative, since this is actually an important climate solution!) a case of the farmer reducing its Scope 1 emissions, much like a manufacturer increasing its energy efficiency would reduce its Scope 2 emissions. In both cases, these reductions would role up to buyers for whom those Scope 1 or 2 emissions are part of their Scope 3 emissions.
Or am I missing something?
while not exactly like offsets - there is still a need for additionality in ag carbon insets in order for the carbon benefits to hold true...something has to go beyond BAU.
Good overview of the many roles in scope 3 insetting, but I think a few things were missed: SustainCERT is not a project developer, they provide standards and validation/verification for carbon insets at this time. Interestingly enough they are setting the bar quite high for project developers attempting to validate and verify scope 3 programs, with criteria for additionally, fungibility (including permanence) and quality. It is also interesting that the WRI Greenhouse gas protocol is not talked about, as their land sector and removals guidance will play a major role, as companies want to incorporate their project accounting into inventory accounting to meet their SBTs.