Climeworks The White House issued a full-throated endorsement of carbon offset credits on Tuesday, laying out guidelines that are meant to calm anxieties about “greenwashing” and encourage companies to invest more heavily in a controversial climate solution. But the rules are toothless, and don’t resolve the critical question of whether the carbon market really is a solution at all, or a costly delaying tactic benefitting the biggest corporate emitters. In announcing the guidelines, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said companies “should prioritize reducing their own emissions” before turning to offsets, but that the purchase of offsets “should complement these efforts.” The White House proposal marks the closest thing yet to rules for those purchases. The guidelines themselves are mostly anodyne and commonsense, including that carbon credits should “represent real decarbonization” and that “credit-generating activities should avoid environmental and social harm.” But they do take the carbon trading industry’s side on a particularly thorny issue that has riled greenwashing watchdog groups, and say that companies should be permitted to count offsets against some of their Scope 3 footprint, attributed to customers’ and suppliers’ emissions. In a broader sense, they put the Biden administration’s imprimatur on a practice that companies had started to shy away from as evidence has accumulated of both outright fraud and lesser misleading marketing practices in the carbon market. “Companies are now hearing from the US government that this isn’t just something you can do,” said Mark Kenber, executive director of the nonprofit Voluntary Carbon Markets Initiative, which is developing its own recommendations for market participants. “It’s something you should do.” There are two key theses driving the administration’s embrace of carbon markets. One is that carbon trading, which amounted to $1.9 billion globally last year, can and should be a key channel through which to move money from the pockets of big companies into climate-impacted communities in poorer countries. The US is far behind most of its peers in its contributions to global climate finance, and facilitating a bigger carbon market is an alternative measure for the administration to tout in advance of the finance-focused COP29 summit this fall. The other thesis is that voluntary carbon markets can be a kind of warm-up act for an eventual transition to economy-wide mandatory carbon pricing, the long-held and elusive dream of climate economists. |