Dave Evans, BSc(hons), MSc, MBA, CEnv, FRGS, FIEMA.

#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 Comments

If you're working in the climate sector in Pakistan, please read 'Shifting from 'sustainability’ to regeneration' by Bill Reed (2007). Sustainability is not our North Star. The 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda is a set of guidelines for conditions that should exist anyway (basic education and healthcare?). If you are genuinely working toward delivering impact or building better futures, you need to start considering regeneration. Green growth is still growth, and it is not going to save us. Unchecked growth itself is reminiscent of cancer, and we can't keep justifying ideals of competing with global economic standards (for what?). Pakistan has been proper suffering ever since I developed ears as a fetus. How long are we going to let the oligarchy co-opt climate action on top of everything else that they already control? Climate action cannot be undemocratic. Climate action cannot exclude the very demographic it affects. Climate action cannot be based on 'green investments and growth'. Climate action must be regenerative, and I am tired of classical Pakistani narratives of victimization while we weaken communities further through oligarchic urban design and expansion. Read about regeneration. Image: Trajectory of Environmentally Responsible Design (Bill Reed, 2007).

90

8 Comments

If we reframe waste as a resource, we don’t just solve the disposal problem, we start a chain reaction for the circular economy. Here are some reframes: ♻ Coffee grounds → urban farms UK cafés throw away 500,000 tonnes of coffee grounds every year. Instead of landfill methane, they could be turned into mushroom-growing substrate, creating fresh produce for local markets. ♻ Demolition rubble → low-carbon construction Construction generates over 60% of UK waste. Crushed concrete can replace virgin aggregate in new builds, cutting emissions from quarrying and transport. ♻ Office e-waste → community repair hubs Old IT kit isn’t scrap, it’s an apprenticeship opportunity. Partnering with repair hubs keeps devices in use and trains the next generation of green-skilled workers. ♻ Food manufacturing by-products → animal feed & biogas Breweries send spent grain to farmers; similar partnerships could turn surplus bakery goods into livestock feed or anaerobic digestion fuel. One business’s “waste” becomes another’s revenue stream. Local economies strengthen. Carbon footprints shrink. Picture - Brenna Quinlan

302

19 Comments

Could philanthropic capital help bridge the early-stage funding gap for durable carbon removal? Terraset thinks so. The non-profit recently launched a revolving fund. The fund uses philanthropic capital to make pre-purchases of carbon removal credits from project developers across a range of removal pathways. Once the credits are delivered, Terraset will re-sell the credits to other buyers and then plow the money back in to fund more pre-purchases from early-stage projects. This model could create a highly catalytic, evergreen fund to accelerate carbon removal scale up. I wrote a little more about how the revolving fund works, and its first round of purchases, over on Trellis. Article 🔗 in comments. Thanks to Terraset CEO, Adam Fraser for the interview!

66

15 Comments

A weak alliance does not mean it cannot be useful. Sustainability professionals often chase perfect partnerships that have complete alignment, shared resources, and seamless synergy. But the truth is that weak alliances often move the needle faster than waiting for strong ones. A weak alliance might be short-lived, lack full trust, and not tick every strategic box. But it creates momentum, conversation, action, and visibility. In the messy middle of sustainability, where regulations evolve, resources are scarce, and stakeholders diverge. What matters is movement, not purity. Weak alliances are not flaws. They are prototypes, experiments, and bridges. In an industry obsessed with winning coalitions and airtight frameworks, the most courageous sustainability leaders embrace imperfection. They say: Let us collaborate anyway. Not because it is ideal. But because it is urgent. So next time you hesitate to partner because the fit is not perfect. Ask yourself: what small change could this imperfect alliance unlock? And remember, legacies are not built on perfect conditions. They are built on imperfect courage.

36

1 Comment

🌍 Why every board needs a Transition Plan Scorecard 1️⃣ A transition plan is more than compliance it’s a strategy to thrive in a low-carbon economy. 2️⃣ It helps boards assess how well they’re tackling climate risks and opportunities. 3️⃣ The TPT Scorecard is a practical tool with 20 questions across 4 stages: Assess, Set Ambition, Plan, Implement. 4️⃣ It guides directors in aligning business strategy with climate action. 5️⃣ Completing it helps capture diverse board perspectives and build stronger discussions. 6️⃣ It highlights gaps and challenges, ensuring boards stay future-ready. 7️⃣ It can be used repeatedly, supporting the iterative nature of transition planning. 8️⃣ The results help benchmark your readiness against best practices. 9️⃣ It’s designed to encourage constructive debate, not just tick-box answers. 🔟 Ideally, the whole board should complete it because climate action is a collective responsibility. 👉 A great tool to have in your boardroom conversations. Would you encourage your board to try this? 💬

46

1 Comment

Water asked carbon, “Can you please stop pretending we’re not in the same process?” Carbon shrugged. “Talk to the people who wrote the sustainability targets.” I had the pleasure of writing this feature for Ecotextile News, exploring why textile decarbonisation and water stewardship are not two separate checkboxes but two sides of the same problem. From coal-fired dyeing units to sludge-heavy ZLD systems, the interlinkages between energy and water in textiles are profound and often overlooked. This piece dives into how upstream interventions, especially in chemistry and process design, might offer more than just marginal gains. Full article here: https://lnkd.in/eeFwAPWU

59

13 Comments