We cannot wait. We cannot keep doing the same things and expect better results. We cannot do this alone. And we can be part of the solution.
Nature based carbon offset projects need a software solution for project proponents and their stakeholders to show and tell the true story of their projects using objective, transparent information
The first step is reducing emissions. We don’t disagree on that. But offsets are key to a decarbonized economy—so they must be done right. More than a third of the world’s largest publicly traded companies have publicly committed to net zero targets (source). And while a portion of that can be accomplished through insetting and removal, the majority right now is done through offsetting, known as: carbon credits. They let the buyer essentially pay another company to lower its GHGs, and receive a credit for that reduction to substantiate their public claims. Along with the transaction of the credit, the community in which the projects occur and impact want to see additionality, transparency, durability, and co-benefits. We want to see this too and so do investors.
However, inflating ambition can escalate risk. And it’s often a short board meeting if any do-good initiative has a laundry list of associated brand risks, especially for companies beholden to shareholder value. Additionality is difficult to prove, transparency is more a buzzword than a norm, durability is rarely measured by outcomes, and co-benefits are often not equitable or community informed. As a result, increased scrutiny of corporate Net Zero and carbon crediting claims has dampened capital inflows and shifted the approach of credit buyers. Voluntary credit buyers are then responding by engaging more directly with project proponents and attempting to reduce their risk by exerting more control over where and how their investments are made, as well as employing other means of determining project quality outside the above mentioned frameworks.
This might scare investors and credit buyers. And to be honest, we don’t blame them. Investing in the carbon market can be more challenging when it involves a commitment to creating positive impact under a watchful public eye that is losing patience. And yet, the market demand continues to outpace the supply (source) with projections to grow 50-fold within the next 10 years from $2 billion just two years ago and hike to $100 billion by 2030 (source). And so there exists a terrifying parallel between a rapid scale of capital being invested into products that still lack accountability for quality, credibility, and transparency.
Where others might be terrified, we are driven. Because if it’s to be done well, it will be challenging. And we’re up for that challenge.
I’m Kyle Holland and I have over 15 years of experience working in forest carbon and founded EP Carbon, contributing to more than 45 carbon projects and have authored multiple accounting methodologies under the Verified Carbon Standard. I am committed to this work because _________. I am now committed to launching a new company to address the needs my team at EP Carbon have been struggling to address with our clients. Impact Inside is a SaaS platform helping carbon project proponents and their stakeholders show and tell the true story of their projects using objective, transparent information.
There is tremendous momentum led by the Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative, and registries and bodies like VERRA’s Verified Carbon Standard, Gold Standard, Climate Action Reserve, Puro.Earth. There are evolving principles being developed and deployed like the Voluntary Carbon Markets Core Carbon Principles, the Oxford Net Zero-Aligned Offsetting Principles. There are verifiers like SCS Global Services and DNV. There are marketplaces in development like: 3Degrees, South Pole Group, and Terrapass. And there are ratings agencies helping consolidate the rubrics like BeZero, Calyx, and Sylvera.
While we eventually aspire for a centralized and standardized marketplace for investors and buyers to find, understand, and compare carbon credit projects, what we also need is a recipe we can all agree on to holistically understand and improve the impact of nature based carbon projects. It cannot be expensive, complicated, time-consuming, duplicative, or siloed. Because right now, projects are governed by outdated standards that don’t match the technological capabilities of today.
Projects and co-benefits are complex and often case-specific. We get it. If we can show the work, make it seamless and less burdensome to collect information from the communities most impacted, and tie activities to impact and outcomes stitched to the overall Theory of Change, we can then empower project proponents, investors, and partners to create better quality projects and thus earn higher credit prices.
And so let’s start there. Higher quality projects are worth higher credit prices. But we can’t assume or expect investors and buyers to have the software or investment thesis to design, manage, and monitor the impact of high quality projects. From the conversations I’ve had, every nature based carbon project investor wants to know: “What’s the positive impact my money will have and what’s my risk?” Well, I’ll go so far to say: it’s our fault that we haven’t made it easy to communicate to investors the impact of their carbon project investments to signal which are demonstrably high quality versus those that are less so.
I’ll share an example ________
And so if the carbon credit strategy meets the buyer or investor’s sustainability goals and carbon footprint reduction targets, a higher quality carbon project warrants higher value by:
- reducing risk of negative publicity,
- strengthening the assurance of the carbon actually being removed or avoided,
- aligning with evolving standards and thus impactful trade regulations,
- while ensuring long term durability informed by and engaging with, the local communities most impacted.
And so as we get to work every day to build a solution to be of service to the market, these are the questions we ask ourselves:
