Cecilia Simon

🌍 Carbon Pricing: Voluntary vs. Compliance Markets When it comes to carbon credits, not all markets are the same. Understanding the Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM) vs. the Compliance Carbon Market (CCM) is key for businesses, investors, and policymakers. 🔑 Takeaway: • VCM = flexible, lower price, but variable quality. • CCM = mandatory, regulated, higher price, and transparent. Both play a vital role in accelerating the global shift to a low-carbon economy. 🚀 #CarbonMarkets #Decarbonization #Sustainability #CarbonCredits #NetZero #ClimateFinance

151

2 Comments

It is official: the The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) just approved the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) Program’s improved forest management (IFM) methodology (VM0045, v1.2) as meeting the Core Carbon Principles (CCP) criteria. With this approval, the ICVCM recognizes VM0045 as exceeding the bar for scientific rigor and atmospheric integrity. VM0045 is the methodology we at the American Forest Foundation designed in collaboration with our partners at The Nature Conservancy and TerraCarbon LLC to a) more reliably and accurately set baselines, b) make the inclusion of very small properties possible, and c) greatly reduce the conflict of interest that exists when a project developer can set their own baseline (something which VM0045 makes effectively impossible). It is gratifying to see the official board notes from the IC-VCM where they note that VM0045's "novel" approach was "designed to increase robustness" - because that is, in fact, why we all spent so much time working on it. If you are a developer working on non-industrial private lands (aka "with smallholders"), there is now NO DOUBT what IFM methodology you should use. Like any more rigorous methodology, VM0045 makes developing carbon projects more difficult and more expensive, but we now hope, with this CCP designation, that the market will begin to reward those developers who demonstrate their commitment to quality through the use of this methodology. I also want to congratulate ACR for the IC-VCM's recognition of their IFM methodology version 2.1, which has advanced the quality of IFM credits for projects based on industrial timberlands, and CAR for the recognition of their Mexico Forest Protocol (about which I admittedly know very little). The bottom line is we now have confirmation that Improved Forest Management is capable, across three methodologies (and more to come I'm sure), of producing the highest-quality carbon credits! And a final congratulations to those who worked so hard on VM0045, of which the following is just a small list: David Shoch, Erin Swails, Ben Rifkin, Bronson Griscom, Edie Sonne Hall, Campbell Moore, David Ford, Josh Parrish, Lynn Riley, Elizabeth Vranas, Christine Cadigan, Fran Raymond Price, Ethan Belair, David Antonioli, Blake Troxel, Peter Ellis, John Gunn, Catherine Chamberlain, PhD - there are many others who I am sure I am forgetting!

246

31 Comments

5 years from now, the biggest difference between carbon credit registries will likely not be their methodologies. It will be how they 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 methodologies. Here’s what I mean: In 2025, we’re still seeing a few key differences from one methodology to another. But if registries 1) have access to the same research and 2) have to adapt to the same regulations, it’s very possible standards will start to look more and more similar. So what differentiates registries? From my perspective, it’s all about how registries enable tangible, real-world climate impact. And as methodologies standardize, these 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 questions will become much more significant: • What’s the registry’s tech stack? How transparent is it making the carbon credit for the buyer? • What’s the registry’s buyer and seller network? How well do they actually help get climate projects funded? • How much support does the registry offer to project developers? How quickly and frequently do they enable credit verification and issuance? And so on. I’m very proud of the methodologies our Science Team has developed with our technical working groups, and I’m very grateful for the many experts and developers who’ve provided input through the standard development process. But alongside this focus on rigorous science, we're focused on: • continuing to build a platform that results in efficient, transparent issuance of carbon credits • matching buyers with credits that align with their business strategies and climate commitments “Quality” carbon credits is table stakes. Excellent operations and tech that meets market needs is how these carbon credits will become tools for catalytic climate action.

97

7 Comments

Waste management is a ticking time bomb for many developing countries. Nobody wants a landfill nearby. They spew methane and catch fire, causing even worse pollution. In Chile 20% of waste is disposed in places where the landfill is ending its life, with no replacement in site. This means that cities are sending trash farther and farther, with 9 cities already surpasing 250 miles of disposal, with Ancud breaking the record with 450 miles. These are massive costs. Organic waste diversion is much cheaper, and a better solution. That's why Global Methane Hub is supporting the government in their organic waste diversion law that will band organic waste to be disposed of in landfills, contributing to lower disposal costs, and a true circular economy. This is the tip of the iceberg of what other countries are facing, in which the local, small scale solution of organic waste management can bring much needed relief in lowering management costs, and not have cities spend most of their scarce funding in driving trash to a landfill.

172

6 Comments