I must first say that I met a number of highly motivated, very intelligent people throughout the day, all of whom are trying to make their mark in the space. Whether it’s as the best certifier, a foundation exploring new avenues in environmental action, or as a lawyer trying to navigate the labyrinth of carbon capital markets and regulations, it’s hard not to be thoroughly impressed by the caliber of the people in the field.
Now, that said, I do have a number of comments about the day (read: gripes) that I feel should be brought to light:
- Carbon market design is not collaborative
It seemed that almost everyone I met, and this is especially true amongst the speakers at the various sessions, was out to push their own agenda. From a UNFCC exec clamoring for ever stricter regulations and using CDM/JI framework as the benchmark, to the creators of the Gold Standard, to an offset project developer with difficulty selling on established markets (due in part to overly strict standards, but mostly because his projects were blatant attempts to make a fortune), it was all ‘me me me’. Nobody was listening.
- Market standards are taken for granted
The main thing I noticed was that nobody questioned the various standards, all of which had a presence at the Forum. It was kind of like walking down a street in downtown Mexico City, with the buskers, hawkers and street vendors all clamoring for my attention. What none seemed to acknowledge was that the standards, whether CDM, VCS, or Gold, have massive blind spots when it comes to their target audiences. Sure, the Gold Standard has added an extra layer, an extra filter, to the process to help identify sustainable development offset projects (and thus ascribe value to these), but they haven’t made the experience any easier, or more inclusive. The Gold Standard takes for granted the CDM base methodology (and additionality tool, but more on that later), while providing more hoops for offset sellers to jump through.
The Voluntary Carbon Standard was no different: like the Gold Standard, it dismissed charges of complexity and exclusionary practices because “it had been approved by over 50 NGOs”. Big whoop. So 50 NGOs approved a flawed methodology that none of them will ever actually use (because they aren’t offset sellers or project developers). Whatever happened to listening to those who will have to navigate the standards minefield, pay the exorbitant fees, wait the 3-year average approval process? The carbon market ‘user community’ has been ignored, and this fact was only reinforced at the Forum.
- ‘Additionality’ is not questioned
My absolute biggest gripe related to the way in which no one, not a single speaker (that I saw, anyway), questioned the validity of the CDM’s ‘additionality tool’. Obviously, the CDM folks have to stand behind it to a certain extent, but rather than recognize that it could be more differentiated in its scope, they argued for stricter rules! This despite the fact that there’s a huge waiting list of projects awaiting approval, held up partly because additionality requirements necessitate a bulletproof M & E component.
The 800lb gorilla in the room was ignored, and the carbon user community let down once again.
- Markets are industry-dominated
Almost all of the above issues stem from one simple truth: the carbon market is dominated by industry. It was designed to change behavior at the industry and organizational level, which has had a number of unforeseen effects:
- Offset projects have aligned themselves to meet industry-sized needs. A premium is placed on volume, which in turn (to reduce verification and certification costs) aligns projects so that they can be placed in homogeneous batches. Think cow-methane capture (a pretty standardized and measurable process) rather than the installation of CFLs in rural home in Uganda, or biodigesters (whose measurement components are infinitely messier and more complex).
- As a result, standards are targeted toward big projects that can afford a lengthy, and expensive certification and verification process (due to high volume). The side effect is that ‘micro projects’ are all but nonexistent. The CDM classification for a micro project places the emissions bar at 5000 tonnes CO2e, which effectively excludes everyone without a herd of 3000 cattle. Or identical energy efficiency projects spread across 4000 identical homes with identical energy usage habits.
Back to Basics
All of this brings me back to what I see as an obvious point: the carbon market and associated standards, need to be redesigned according to the needs of the individual consumer. Enough with trying to force industry standards and expectations on your average Joe. The simple truth of the matter is that carbon markets are meant to change behavior (albeit by allowing certain people to change very little, if at all), and are currently ignoring the individual component of the carbon user community.
The result? Carbon offset buyers are faced with boring choices (plant a tree, cow excrement, open ocean iron filings) and potential sellers, individuals in the developed and developing worlds who should be rewarded for changing their behavior, despite the minute amounts of carbon emissions reductions achieved, are being ignored. Worse, carbon positive behavior (ie: switching from fire wood to a sun stove, normal lights to CFLs, etc.) as a mechanism for lifting people out of poverty, by encouraging such activities, is totally shut out.
Enough is enough. Carbon for Good has to work, or true change will forever be limited…