Mark Carney's Taskforce on carbon offsetting is heavy on finance, light on science.

My take and a proposed way forward just published in @BusinessGreen. Links below followed by thread...

1) @TheSmithSchool: https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/news/articles/201211-right-topics-wrong-emphasis.html
2) BG: https://www.businessgreen.com/opinion/4024759/carney-taskforce-carbon-offsetting-misses-mark

1/

...the Taskforce's recommendations are almost all on market mechanics: enabling futures markets, high liquidity, and highly-abstracted "Core Carbon Credits" in the tradition of reference contracts for other commodities.

What's missing? An honest discussion of OFFSET QUALITY.

2/

The only offset worth scaling is one with real, demonstrated impact on atmospheric CO2 (a caveat to this below). Many offsets being sold today, even those with fancy labels + certifications, do not come close to meeting this standard. Some examples of known issues include...

3/

- systematic overcrediting (oversells impact)
- no additionality (reduction/removal would have happened anyway)
- flawed measurement of indirect carbon leakage (reduction/removal in one location undermined by increases elsewhere)
- limited incorporation of non-CO2 effects

4/

Shouldn't any effort to scale carbon markets start by acknowledging these issues and exploring innovative and ambitious solutions? Carving out "core carbon principles" as separate and deferred workstream (Taskforce's approach) abdicates responsibility and preserves status quo

5/

One alternative: Create offset quality TIERS linked to which claims they enable. Offsets aligned w/ a "net zero emissions" claim must carry extremely high-certainty carbon impact. Other offsets can prioritise other goals, lessen carbon stringency, and be labelled accordingly.

6/

For its final phase, the Taskforce needs to reboot and ground its work in making the atmospheric impacts of offsets trustworthy and clear. This will require engaging scientists (!) and many others. In the piece I offer 3 specific recommendations...

7/

1) Clarify taxonomy to include long-lived storage - As important as whether an offset is a "removal" or "reduction" (both valid in short to medium term, but removals are the eventual destination) is the durability or reversal risk of the underlying carbon storage.

8/

2) Making carbon and non-carbon benefits clear - Buyers need clarity on what they're buying. Many offsets (aka carbon credits) deliver excellent co-benefits but paltry or oversold carbon benefits. That's OK, as long as it's clear on the tin!

9/

3) Frankly acknowledge + address quality issues - There are deep problems with existing certification bodies, their offset methodologies (see above), and the markets they serve. But you wouldn't know that reading the Taskforce's report. Let's tackle these head on, together!

10/

Taskforce for Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets consultation doc: https://www.iif.com/tsvcm 
Oxford Principles for Net Zero Aligned Carbon Offsetting: https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/publications/reports/Oxford-Offsetting-Principles-2020.pdf
Views in thread and BG piece my own. Authors' official consultation responses to be shared shortly.

11/11

@bencaldecott @KayaAxelsson @thomasnhale @camjhep @ymalhi @FrediOtto @NathalieSeddon @stv_smth @ben_elgin @lisalsong @lesliehook @CarbonWrangler @TSearchinger @TheCarbonSink @thefreemanlab @dcullenward @GeorgeMonbiot @MaxNova90 @carbon_180 @KenCaldeira @jwilceclab @claydumas