It is not easy to summarize the content of the annual North American Carbon World conference, where dozens of conferences took place over three days in San Francisco. However, in my eyes, one element stands out in particular, namely a fundamental tension on carbon markets in the face of the climate emergency. On the one hand, we find those who emphasize the necessary great rigor in accounting for greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions that can be recognized, on the other, those who prefer to emphasize the urgency to act and refuse to get caught up in the trivialities.
We are constantly reminded that 2023 was the hottest year on record. In other words, human beings have never lived on such a hot planet. The consequences are felt everywhere, and our way of life as well as our institutions are, as a result, threatened.
What emerges is an implacable observation: our governments do not have the means to deal with all the needs arising from the situation. In this context, it is imperative to mobilize the resources available to the financial and private sectors. To do this, incentives must be put in place by governments and a price on GHG emissions seems to be the way to do it. Indeed, where they have been implemented, carbon markets have shown that they work.
Despite everything, the use of market logic to manage environmental problems arouses a lot of mistrust everywhere. Here and there, companies are accused of greenwashing because they are not doing enough or not doing it well enough in the eyes of their accusers. For example, financial institutions that follow the evolution of the climate crisis adapt to the new context and, after having declared their emissions, modified their practices and adopted plans to reduce their GHGs, find themselves prosecuted in court for having used the term “sustainable finance”.
The same thing happened with companies that announced carbon neutrality goals and whose strategies to get there were attacked by well-meaning environmental groups. As a result, we are now witnessing a new trend in the business world: “acting without saying it” (the green hushing). For what ? Because having objectives and a plan to achieve them in the fight against climate change no longer allows you to be perceived as a good citizen.
On the contrary, in doing so, a company that is taking action is now open to criticism. There is a risk of questioning both his commitment and his actions and then sullying his reputation. In this hypersensitive context, some companies come to the conclusion that it is better to do nothing or only talk about their commitments to their direct customers and suppliers, without announcing them publicly.
As we can guess, such a situation is counterproductive and arouses passions. In the industry, there is a category of players who position themselves by saying that we need to better structure the market and thus ensure the absolute integrity of the market. This involves new, more rigorous standards, more project analysis, the creation of new categories, positions on what is a good project and what is not a good project, the creation of private agencies. evaluation, positions on acceptable or unacceptable reduction strategies and lots of expert discussions of all kinds.
No one questions the basic idea that the integrity of the carbon market must be ensured. However, the most experienced players point out that a tonne of GHG reduced is a tonne reduced, whatever the technology used and whatever the location of this reduction and that in the end, that is what counts in the context of climate emergency that we face. Their mantra: “the best is the enemy of the good”. They fear that we will find ourselves in 2030 in a situation where, rather than working to reduce our GHG emissions, we will still be discussing how to measure and account for the reductions associated with a project that has positive effects.
To avoid the paralysis they denounce, certain environmentalists, scientists and media who are concerned about the quality of projects must enter into a collaborative mode with companies to make their concerns heard rather than entering into a confrontation with them.
For their part, companies must open up to this dialogue by sharing their efforts, their constraints, their progress, their difficulties to those who question them. Publicly, businesses must also resist the temptation to turn in on themselves. They must avoid giving in to the fear of being sued. They must continue to show off what they are doing by presenting their efforts with pride, whether they result in success or failure.
We absolutely must get away from this logic of fear where we accuse each other of not doing enough or not doing what is necessary.
On the contrary, we must congratulate each other for what we are trying to put in place to fight climate change.
It is by encouraging and supporting each other that we will get there.