So what does the VCS have for us? At first blush, something refreshingly different from other carbon schemes: a collection of four registries to identify, verify, trace and authenticate carbon credits from A-to-Z. This represents a step in the right direction since most standards (such as the Gold Standard) pair with a single registry when rolling out credit schemes. The reasons for this are pretty obvious, since pairing with a single registry means fewer moving parts and the lower costs associated with managing a contained partnership. Managing and tracking carbon credits across registries is purportedly too difficult, and thus remains a barrier to more comprehensive, cross-registry standards.
What a load of bull.
Sure, linking up multiple registries - even four - is certainly more difficult than a one-on-one relationship, but the VCS’s move leaves me wanting more. Here’s a running tally for how the VCS has consistently let me down:
1. I was initially hopeful that the VCS would be a truly collaborative, open system. I was sick of closed, private standards (like the Gold Standard) that pretended to set the bar above all others while simultaneously solving the market’s problems, when in reality the result was almost always the opposite: an expensive, bloated, insulated standard that ignored many of the constituents within the voluntary system.
2. I was also hopeful that the VCS would open up the discussion to all interested parties, both within and without of the voluntary markets, the typical (corporate) and the atypical (individual) customers. Alas, this was not to be, as the VCS ‘collaborated’ with a mere 50 non-profit and carbon credit-related organizations to come up with the fundamentals of the standard. I’m not sure what they did for all those months, but I’m sure it took them ages to post the link to the CDM website on the VCS ‘Methodology’ section. Well done.
Why not open it to a global forum, and get everyone to weigh in, from the unhappy corporates who buy high volume (but want higher quality), to the wary individuals who want low volume and are sick of buying ‘plant a tree’ credits. There was an immense opportunity to both educate and dive deeper into the future of the voluntary market that was missed, and it’s a damn shame.
3. Finally, I was all excited about the potential to create a truly cross-registry standard. I had envisioned an online market place that tagged credits once they were listed, and gave them a unique VCS ID number that each member registry then used to keep everything kosher. However, the VCS spokesperson claims that this is the “difficult next step that the organization must figure out” (I’m paraphrasing), making it sound like it’s going to be akin to finding the cure for cancer in terms of difficulty.
Puh-lease. Sure, it’ll require a bulletproof backend with basic tracking requirements, but it’s hardly rocketscience, and it’s not as if it hasn’t been done before (as the spokesperson rightly points out, banks have been doing it for years).
I’m simply worried that the four registry ‘collaboration’ is the end of it. There’s no word that the group will expand, and it’s worrisome that the VCS didn’t think through the tracking system - it hints that they probably haven’t thought through registry expansion plans.
In any case, not to be too critical, but it’s very disheartening to see how the supposedly ‘open’ and more creative factions (and they are a faction), such as the VCS, are finding it all but impossible to think outside the box.
::sigh::