Davide Zanoni

2026 will be a landmark year for whole-life carbon in Europe's buildings! Just before summer the European Commission published guidance for member states on implementing the EPBD Recast, (Annex 13 if you want to google it). The key points are that every member state has to map out how and when they’ll measure and cap carbon in new buildings. 🔹 Roadmaps due end of 2026, this will require lots of data! 🔹 Carbon limits kick in 2028 (large buildings) & 2030 (all new) at the latest! 🔹 Some are already far ahead, Denmark is on version two of its limits 💪 And by the end of this year we’ll get the EU’s harmonised method for life-cycle GWP – this will be a key document that should help to drive consistency and harmonisation across the region and beyond! I’ll be presenting on this along with Marios Tsikos from One Click LCA in a free webinar: 🎯 Designing for EPBD: Whole-life carbon disclosure & limits in construction projects 📅 Tuesday 30 September • 10:00 CEST 👉 Save your spot: https://lnkd.in/d-Wpb6St? #Decarbonisation #EPBD

128

16 commenti

From a source at EFRAG: the draft exposure standard for the simplified ESRS will be published tomorrow or the day after. EFRAG had previously stated that the draft would be released “the last week of July,” and following last week’s open SRB meeting, it seems they’re sticking to that timeline. Once it's out, there will be a 60 day public consultation period lasting until the end of September. During this period, all stakeholders can provide feedback. What we’re going to see is significant. Key details from the revised draft include: – 58% reduction in mandatory data points – Nearly all “May” data points eliminated – Combined, that’s close to a 66% overall cut This is a serious shift. We're about to witness what the proposed future of European ESG reporting will look like. Will post the ESRS draft exposure as soon as it's live.

97

1 commento

3 charts showing the growing price premium for high-quality NBS carbon credits. 1. $10/ton growth in 2025 for highly-rated ARR credits Average prices for afforestation and reforestation (ARR) credits rated BBB or above by Sylvera rose to $24/ton in September. That's up $10 since January of this year. 2. >40% premium for highly-rated NBS credits across project types Calyx Global data shows a very large price premium for nature-based carbon credits in its Tier 1 category (A-rating or above on the Calyx scale). Calyx/Clear Blue Markets pricing data for Tier 1 NBS projects began in May, 2024 and showed about a 40% premium over Tier 2 credits at that time. The chart shows this Tier 1 premium rising steadily since then, to about ~150% as of July of this year. This data is across all nature-based project types rated by Calyx, so includes both removals and reduction/avoidance projects. 3. AlliedOffsets The third chart, this one by AlliedOffsets, shows a very large spread between maximum estimated retired price for NBS credits vs weighted average, since Jan 2024. Though the chart isn't mapping this against a measure of project quality, it underscores the story in the previous two charts - that a few projects are selling for substantial premiums above average market prices. One takeaway: It's impressive to see the correlation between high ratings and price premiums. To me, it's unclear whether the ratings are causing the price premiums, or just reflecting what's happening (probably a little bit of both?). Either way, it underscores the big responsibility on ratings agencies to get it right !

111

7 commenti

Hot off the press: 3 detailed reports (306 pages!) informing the upcoming EU purchasing programme for permanent #CDR. Get reading: 1. An EU Purchasing Programme for Permanent #CarbonRemovals: Presents seven policy options for expanding CDR technologies and markets. Focuses on the potential role of an EU-wide purchasing programme in the short term (2025–2030) and how it could stimulate demand for permanent CDR. 2. Carbon Removals in the EU: Review of Current Carbon Removal Projects and Early-stage Financing maps Europe’s permanent CDR projects up until 2035, assessing technologies, costs, funding needs and barriers. 3. Carbon Removals in the EU: Assessment of Existing EU Funding Programmes and New Funding Models to Increase Carbon Removal Supply reviews existing EU support and explores new ways to finance early-stage CDR projects. https://lnkd.in/ehTbwDyU -- Click the 🔔 on my profile and select "all" to catch every insight I share. Knowledge drives meaningful #climateaction.

95

6 commenti

#Article6 / #CORSIA buy side insights and tips shared in the Sylvera and Climate Action Center of Excellence (CACE) webinar yesterday. 1. Key aspects when considering an Article 6 investment.   Start with the NDC - how clearly defined are the NDC targets? Are the targets conditional or unconditional. Is there a clear sectoral breakdown? Is the country serious about meeting its target and has it had sufficient climate finance?   At a minimum you need to check that your project type isn’t sat in an unconditional NDC, ideally it’s in the conditional NDC and on a whitelist.    Look for an Article 6 Framework, is there a clear understanding of the costs of a Corresponding Adjustment? Who has legal authority to issue a CA? Is there alignment between the framework, regulations, and the NDC? Did the country submit it's last Biannual Transparency Report on time, and does it have the capacity to meet future reporting obligations? Smart investors are in country capacity building as well as investing at a project level. If the project does have an LOA, look for or ask when the Initial Report is being published. The UNFCCC Technical Expert Review team will then identify and publish any inconsistencies on the Centralised Accounting and Reporting Platform (CARP). What do those inconsistencies mean to corporate buyers?    If I was investing, I would look for projects that are CORSIA eligible, that can deliver real reductions or removals within the current NDC cycle, and whose economics will continue to stack up in the absence of a CA beyond 2030.  2. Role for collaboration. The A6 market is in reality, many markets with a CA in common. Most A6 credits only have one use case that needs to be designed for upfront, this fragments the market. Due to different buyer criteria, A6 credits tend to work for only one country or CORSIA, they can't deliver into both. This creates a real headache for project developers and countries. They effectively need to pick a winning horse before it’s born.   To scale, we need a greater fungibility of A6 credits. This requires buyers -countries, corporates or schemes - to align in their criteria.    Country stakeholders could also form consortiums to share the cost of capacity building - and by that I don’t mean workshops, but support with reporting and compliance.  Some countries cant even afford to turn up to the negotiating table at Bonn/COP, so we need to make sure funding isn’t just for projects, but for the host countries to meet all the requirements to issue a robust CA and to deliver conditional NDCs. In an ideal world, if the promised conditional financing doesn’t materialise, a change in the rules to allow market mechanisms to fill the funding gap should be considered. For those that missed the webinar: https://lnkd.in/eAj2p5HV Francisco Rentería Alexandra Soezer Lisa Hendrickson Carbon Pulse Ing. Glenn Kwabena Gyimah (PhD) Carmen Álvarez Campo 🌿 Supanut Chotevitayatarakorn emsurge

107

13 commenti

The Voluntary reporting standard for SMEs (VSME) will/can/might be the new default way of sustainability reporting for SMEs and mid-sized companies in Europe, given the drastically reduced scope of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). What climate-related metrics do companies need to report under the VSME? 👉 In the Basic Module (B3) - Total energy consumption (renewable vs. non-renewable) - GHG emissions: scope 1 and scope 2 location-based - GHG intensity - Optionally, scope 3 GHG emissions if appropriate 👉 In the Comprehensive Module (C3, C4) - GHG reduction targets for scope 1 and 2 (scope 3 is optional, see above) - Climate risks and their potential impact on financial performance Personally, I’m relieved to see that core climate metrics are embedded in the VSME (as-is emissions, targets and risk assessments). However, the optional nature and vagueness around scope 3 reporting remains a disappointment. Source: https://lnkd.in/eKAPJgfV

52

7 commenti

EU Taxonomy vs. ESG Ratings – From Green Intentions to Green Impact I recently came across this study on the EU Taxonomy Regulation and found it really interesting. It sheds light on how markets respond differently to Taxonomy alignment compared to traditional ESG ratings. 🔎 Key insights: > Companies with higher EU Taxonomy alignment (revenues from sustainable activities) enjoy a market premium. > Investor attention matters > Traditional ESG ratings did not explain these market effects. 💡 Why the difference? ESG ratings focus on firm-level policies, disclosures, and governance. They can vary widely across providers and often reward communication as much as impact. EU Taxonomy defines sustainability at the activity level using strict, science-based thresholds. It requires firms to disclose the share of revenue, capex, and opex aligned with six environmental objectives (es: climate change mitigation and adaptation; Circular Economy) ⚖️ Limitations & future research: > The Taxonomy currently centers on environmental objectives, leaving the S& G dimensions less defined. > The study focused on the early implementation phase, future research can explore whether the alignment premium persists over time. 🚀 Takeaway: The EU Taxonomy shifts the lens from green intentions to green impact. For investors, regulators, and companies, this offers a much clearer framework - and it’s only the beginning of how sustainable finance will evolve.

72

5 commenti