Carbon removal enters scale-up phase, says Climate Week NYC

The era of cheap offsets is over. The Oxford Principles show what credible climate action really looks like. Carbon credits are evolving from quick fixes to long-term climate investments. The focus is shifting from volume to value, and from claims to proof. So what does “credible” really look like in practice? The Oxford Principles for Net-Zero Aligned Carbon Offsetting, revised in 2024, are fast becoming the reference point for how responsible companies fund climate solutions that stand up to science. They outline a simple but essential shift: 1. Reduce first: cut operational and value-chain emissions, and ensure the credits you fund are genuinely additional and verified. 2. Evolve over time: increase the share of carbon removals as you move toward your net-zero date. 3. Favour durability: prioritise removals that store carbon for centuries, not decades. 4. Build the future market: support long-term contracts, finance innovation, and invest in ecosystem restoration beyond your own footprint. The visual below shows how this evolution looks in practice, where carbon avoidance gradually gives way to durable removals as emissions fall and investment aligns with science. At Ecologi | B Corp™, we apply this framework to help organisations balance credibility and impact. That means combining near-term avoidance projects such as cleaner cookstoves with long-term removals like biochar and blue carbon, while funding restoration that strengthens biodiversity and livelihoods. This isn’t about chasing the cheapest credit. It’s about building integrity into your climate strategy. The Oxford Principles aren’t a badge. They’re a roadmap that moves businesses from transactions to transformation. Which part of this evolution do you think will be most challenging for companies - scaling removals, proving durability, or ensuring credible claims?

Great comment article by Andrew Macintosh et al, but I disagree with the headline: I don't read the article as saying *carbon credits* are failing, but rather that using carbon credits to *offset* emissions is failing. The article's last paragraph (which you can't read in the link being shared across LinkedIn....including in this post below) concludes by saying: "Given the urgent need to preserve the Earth’s natural carbon sinks and biodiversity, carbon credits could help by mobilizing private finance through voluntary programmes. However, an approach is needed that prioritizes at-source mitigation actions and reframes the claims associated with credits  as ‘contributions’ to solutions, rather than ‘compensation’ for emissions. This would push firms and industries to focus on decarbonizing their own operations and investing in the structural changes necessary to phase out fossil-fuel dependence. Credits from carbon and biodiversity projects could then  be purchased to contribute to the protection and restoration of natural sinks, as a complement to — not a substitute for — firms’ core decarbonization efforts." In other words, the thing that is failing is the *compensation claim* being made when using carbon credits to offset emissions. Not the carbon credits themselves per se. The alternative is to make a *contribution claim* when retiring carbon credits. #integritynotoffsets #climatecontributions

A clear message to policy makers of EU member states, the European Commission, and beyond. Base yourselves on scientific evidence and exclude or phase out carbon offsets from carbon-pricing schemes and other climate policy processes. As an alternative, set progressively rising price caps to be payed to governments when facilities are not meeting mandatory emissions-reduction schemes. It is argued that this will enhance transparency, send a stronger signal for industrial transformation and generate revenues for public programmes for climate adaptation and mitigation. The international/global implementation of this approach will however require much attention and scrutiny in order not to harm competitiveness of companies on a global market.

"Given the urgent need to preserve the Earth’s natural carbon sinks and biodiversity, carbon credits could help by mobilizing private finance through voluntary programmes. However, an approach is needed that prioritizes at-source mitigation actions and reframes the claims associated with credits as ‘contributions’ to solutions, rather than ‘compensation’ for emissions. This would push firms and industries to focus on decarbonizing their own operations and investing in the structural changes necessary to phase out fossil-fuel dependence. Credits from carbon and biodiversity projects could then be purchased to contribute to the protection and restoration of natural sinks, as a complement to — not a substitute for — firms’ core decarbonization efforts." - Nature Magazine https://lnkd.in/gjagevvw

CARBON CREDITS AS A STRATEGIC CLIMATE TOOL | We would like to highlight 𝘉𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘶𝘳𝘷𝘦, a recent publication by The Nature Conservancy in collaboration with MSCI Carbon Markets. The paper presents a data-driven perspective on how carbon credits can complement value chain decarbonisation, close the implementation gap where direct mitigation falls short, and support companies in going beyond net zero. The analysis covers climate data from over 4,000 publicly listed companies and quantifies the potential demand for carbon credits under different use cases and adoption scenarios. The conclusion is clear: we are in a climate emergency, and limiting the range of solutions is not an option. Companies need credible and scalable tools to meet their targets—and carbon markets, when implemented with integrity, are part of that solution. Read the full report here: https://lnkd.in/eZ4_BW2x #CarbonMarkets #NetZero #ClimateFinance #CorporateSustainability #CarbonCredits #Treevive

“The key messages coming out of Climate Week won't really surprise anybody in 2025, but it's worth pausing and thinking about what they are.” S&P Global Commodity Insights Co-President Dave Ernsberger joined host David Greely to reflect on what this year’s Climate Week revealed about the state of today’s energy and climate dialogue. As Dave outlined during the discussion, three major themes stood out: 1️⃣ Capital discipline and returns are increasingly shaping the climate investment landscape, with a shift away from reliance on government policy and toward market fundamentals. 2️⃣ Efficiency is re-emerging as the industry’s driving principle — long embedded in how energy systems evolve, and now central to saving both dollars and emissions. 3️⃣ Carbon accounting standards are gaining momentum, with a proliferation of initiatives aimed at creating consistent, credible frameworks for measuring emissions and progress.

It was great to be on the Smarter Markets podcast discussing what’s driving real progress in climate investment. New York Climate Week 2025 was large and focused, and the message was clear: capital discipline and return on investment, efficiency as the fastest decarbonization lever, and steady progress on carbon accounting standards. Read S&P Global’s five takeaways: https://lnkd.in/ebaZXyat

💡Very relevant and interesting report regarding GHG emissions and what economic policies and instruments are needed. Link in comments ⬇️ Ping Miriam Munnich Vass

How can we ensure a sustainable transition in the Global South when 10 countries from the Global North are responsible for half of all historical CO₂ emissions? On July 23rd, the International Court of Justice issued a historic advisory opinion, establishing that states have a legal obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to protect the climate system. In its statement, the Court emphasized that countries of the Global North bear particular responsibility for global emissions and therefore carry additional obligations. This landmark opinion paves the way for greater justice and equity in how the fight against climate change is addressed. Beyond merely acknowledging the responsibility of these nations for climate change and global inequalities, it’s crucial to go further: to finance and support the transition of the Global South, while recognizing the unique regional realities and challenges. This topic is explored in depth in a dedicated section of our Earth Action Report, produced in collaboration with KPMG France and enriched by the insights of dozens of contributors working on the frontlines of the climate and social transition, including Thomas W. Crowther, Gary White, Patricia Espinosa Cantellano. 📘 Dive deeper into the key learnings and perspectives. Download the report here! > https://lnkd.in/eVe9vgdE

In A Race to the Tip, Hansson, Anshelm, and Haikola critically examine how the concept of “tipping points” has evolved in public climate discourse over the past two decades. Originally rooted in climate science to describe thresholds beyond which irreversible environmental change occurs, tipping points have increasingly been applied to societal dynamics, particularly in discussions about transformative climate action. The authors analyse media narratives from ten global news outlets (2020–2024) to explore how societal tipping points are framed in contrast to climate tipping points. They find that the term “tipping point” rarely implies a truly irreversible or self-reinforcing process in public debate. Instead, it serves as a rhetorical device to balance urgency with hope, allowing discussions of catastrophic climate risks to coexist with optimism about social change. Three key discursive tensions emerge: 1- the nature of the transition envisioned (radical vs. incremental), 2- the agency attributed to actors and political systems, and 3- the mechanisms of change (grassroots vs. institutional). Positive societal tipping points, such as shifts in norms, behaviours, or policies are often portrayed as antidotes to negative climate tipping points, yet this framing risks oversimplifying complex systemic challenges. Although, the rise of societal tipping points in climate discourse may foster engagement, it can also depoliticise the debate by implying that incremental change alone will lead to a smooth, conflict free transition. This shift may dilute attention from structural risks and the contested nature of climate governance. Image: Winkelmann et al., (2022) Hansson, A., Anshelm, J., & Haikola, S. (2025). A race to the tip—revisiting societal tipping points in the public climate debate. Dialogues on Climate Change, 0(0). https://lnkd.in/e7HgsEpM