Lizzy Coad

I recently sat down with Genevieve Redgrave at Environmental Finance to discuss the expansion of the UK’s emissions trading scheme and how this is a strong compliance signal that can unlock finance for carbon removal technologies. With widespread removals being recognised by science as necessary to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change, growing demand and building a high-integrity market is key. Here is where carbon markets play a key role, supporting nature-based methods for immediate action whilst accelerating emerging CDR technology innovation - complementary solutions we need to scale to reach global net-zero. Read the full article here https://lnkd.in/eEEBigyS #CDR #UKETS #Decarbonisation #NetZero #ClimateAction #CarbonMarkets thanks to Valentina Ortis for the amazing work

80

Here’s a reminder… Net Zero is doable. It is technologically and economically feasible. Zooming in on cost: 1. ETC estimates that achieving full decarbonisation will cost less than 0.5% of global GDP annually, assuming rapid electrification, green hydrogen, and efficiency at scale. 2. IMF projects 0.5–4.5% of GDP over the next decade, mostly public infrastructure investment (with developing economies needing closer to 2% annually) 3. McKinsey puts the figure at 7–8% of global GDP every year ($9 trillion annually) 4. IEA calls for $4 trillion annually by 2030, mostly for clean power and grids, with a projected +4% GDP boost from jobs and innovation Even at the high end, the cost is tiny compared to the cost of inaction.... Climate damage already costs the world hundreds of billions every year. So… is this really a “cost”? Or the smartest investment of the century? ➡️ If you are a CEO, CFO or CSO, learn more about cost of inaction here: https://lnkd.in/dfWk58eE 📢 Follow Majd Fayyad for more insights about decarbonization #MajdTalks

117

20 Comments

As climate disclosures and net zero targets become the norm, we’re increasingly seeing the boundaries of those targets come under scrutiny. 🎯 Take F1 and Tesco, for example. F1’s net zero target might sound ambitious, but it only includes a narrow slice of emissions, excluding most of its Scope 3 such as fan travel and supply chains. In contrast, a retailer like Tesco may set less flashy targets but cover a far broader footprint. 🙇‍♂️The result? It's difficult to know who’s really leading. Even when comparing organisations in the same industry. The issue isn’t just potential greenwashing, it’s a lack of transparency and consistency in defining emissions scopes, baselines, and targets. Without clear and comparable data, even well-intentioned claims can mislead. 👀 And what about complex organisations like: ⚗ Universities, which generate emissions through large campuses, international travel, and labs - yet also drive climate research and educate the next generation of changemakers. 💊 The NHS or Cancer Research UK, where reducing emissions must be balanced with saving lives and advancing medical science. Should a university or research hospital be held to the same decarbonisation standards as a luxury fashion brand or a streaming platform? We urgently need better frameworks for equity in target-setting. Not just to recognise differences in sectoral purpose, capability, and societal value, but to ensure that, together, we still achieve the level of global decarbonisation required to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. 🌎 The path to net zero isn’t one-size-fits-all, but it must be transparent, science-aligned, and deliver the scale of change the planet needs. 💪 That said, the science behind target setting is often less solid than it’s made out to be. There’s a real need to acknowledge these gaps and bring together forward-thinking minds to strengthen the foundations. 💡 How do we ensure equitable target setting and how does SBTi’s ongoing consultation and upcoming changes fit into this? Could BSI’s net zero pathway provide a viable solution or should we instead focus on value-based target setting - where an organisations positive impact, or ‘changeprint’ is considered alongside its footprint? 🔍 How is your organisation navigating these challenges? Let’s open up the conversation. #Sustainability #NetZero #ClimateAction #Greenwashing #Scope3 #ESG #ScienceBasedTargets #Decarbonisation #ClimateEquity #HigherEducation #NHS #PurposeDriven

30

1 Comment

Yesterday, our CEO, Caroline Bragg, joined Ian Collins on TalkTV during the Conservative Party Conference to discuss recent comments around net zero, including Kemi Badenoch’s suggestion to repeal the Climate Change Act. Recent shocks such as the crisis in Ukraine saw energy bills rise by 74% and are a stark reminder of the volatility of our energy system. As Caroline highlighted the big question is protecting people from this volatility in the future and providing a stable environment for the long-term investment required during the transition to net zero. The Act has given businesses the stability to plan, invest and innovate in decarbonisation. 🏭 From energy security to global competitiveness, it is crucial that we maintain course for net zero without undermining progress.

36

7 Comments