The most ambitious attempt to set a high standard for carbon offsets is getting left behind as exchanges start trading contracts before the rules are finalized.
The Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets, launched by former Bank of England Governor Mark Carney and Standard Chartered CEO Bill Winters, is populated by hundreds of bankers, airline executives, sustainability experts, commodities traders, scientists and other business leaders.
On Thursday, after almost a year of internal wrangling, the group set out its final recommendations for how to define an offset, a sort of token that companies might use to cancel out their pollution.
The next step is to establish a governance body that would determine a set of rules — based on the taskforce’s recommendations — to drive up demand for credits that deliver on their climate promises.
However, commodity exchanges in Chicago and Singapore are rushing to start trading contracts this year, before the standards have been decided upon, raising concerns the taskforce could fail to provide any kind of structure to a market that already has no government oversight.
Getting the contours of the market right could create a powerful weapon in the fight against climate change by funneling much-needed money to important environmental projects around the world.
However, encouraging the trading of contracts without clear rules about what a high-quality offset is and how the credits should be used to account for a company’s total emissions could have devastating consequences. Companies could use questionable offsets as a license to keep polluting, resulting in more carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere.
DEFINING OFFSETS
A key objective of the taskforce is to come up with a Core Carbon Principle (CCP) label that would be used to mark offsets that meet its standards, akin to how groceries might be labeled as organic. Members have spent months arguing over the criteria for inclusion, with sharp divides over how high to set the bar, even as companies have been itching to start trading.
“We need to build this thing and launch it,” said Institute of International Finance president and CEO Tim Adams, who is helping to organize the taskforce.
Sonja Gibbs, another official at the institute, said that the taskforce has already done a large part of the legwork to define the principles, giving direction to anyone wanting to adopt them now.
The non-binding recommendations issued on Thursday suggest that: No offsets should be excluded from the market, although “high-quality” credits should get a special label; each credit should be tagged with “additional attributes” such as its location, or whether it removes carbon dioxide; there should be a robust legal framework behind all credits sold.
The hope is that the planned governance body will nail down the criteria for a high quality “CCP” label so that trading can start next year, but some exchanges aren’t waiting. CME Group, one of the world’s largest derivative exchanges, has already started transactions. Singapore is planning to start trading CCP-aligned contracts before world leaders gather in Scotland for climate talks in November, Adams said.
The trading will be facilitated by Climate Impact X, a new platform backed by Singapore’s state investment firm, stock exchange and largest bank. The Singapore trades will likely be based on rough guidelines that have been set out by the taskforce so far. It is not clear whether those contracts could be later amended to fit with the CCPs once they are final. Climate Impact X declined to comment.
“They’re basically saying they promise to procure and deliver CCP-certified credits to their counterparties in the future,” said Derik Broekhoff, a taskforce member and senior scientist at the Stockholm Environment Institute.
Buyers will probably pay more than they would purchasing credits directly from brokers or project developers, in exchange for the guarantee that they’re buying high-quality offsets endorsed by the taskforce.
“The sellers will then be on the hook to obtain and deliver the credits,” he said.
High-quality offsets that actually remove additional carbon from the atmosphere are extremely rare. Credits based on avoiding emissions made up 96 percent of all contracts issued last year, data compiled by the taskforce show, mostly by seeking to prevent trees from being cut down or supporting renewable energy projects. Climate scientists are cautious of using such credits to erase a company’s ongoing pollution because it is difficult to determine how much carbon, if any, has really been saved.
CME launched trading for carbon offset futures earlier this year, accepting Corsia-eligible offsets issued by Verified Carbon Standard, American Carbon Registry and Climate Action Reserve. The first trade took place in March and included independent oil traders Vitol and Mercuria. The bourse also plans to start nature-based offset contracts on Aug. 1.
CONCERNS AND SUSPICIONS
While CME is a member of the taskforce, it stopped short of saying it would adopt the CCP principles when they are issued.
“We are not climate change experts,” it said in a statement. “We are driven by customer demand and we will continue to be guided by our customers’ preferences and feedback.”
The decision by exchanges to move ahead with trading before the CCP label is finalized has reignited concerns from some taskforce members that the organizers of the group are willing to sacrifice quality for quantity. Carney has said the market could be valued at US$100 billion by 2030, up from about US$300 million in 2018, with demand growing rapidly as scores of companies and countries set net-zero targets.
“The taskforce isn’t really moving the needle on quality,” said Owen Hewlett, a member of the taskforce and chief technology officer at offsets registry Gold Standard. The focus is on building a large, efficient market to meet demand, he said, rather than working out the thorny issues of how companies should use offsets. “This is why there’s so much suspicion.”
The taskforce is also constrained by its lack of authority. Offsets trading is voluntary and project developers are reliant on companies being willing to fund their programs. For some, it is a question of getting trading to take off as quickly as possible, so more funds can flow to boost environmental protection while slowly moving toward better standards — and eventually even government regulation.
“Let’s recognize and applaud those who are doing something, of course, and encourage them to do more,” said Isabel Hagbrink, director of communications at project developer South Pole, which sits on the taskforce. “But understanding that, ultimately, governments have to step in and step up and say, ‘Look, this is not enough. This can’t be all voluntary climate action.’”
KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) recent visit to Beijing and her upcoming visit to Washington will serve as a high-level test of her diplomatic mettle. In Beijing, Cheng was received with symbolic gestures, a warm reception, and high-level access. In Washington, she will receive far less pomp and far sharper questions about the KMT’s vision for the future of Taiwan. Her challenge will be to persuade Washington that the KMT’s engagement with China can coexist with strong deterrence. Cheng’s April 7-12 visit to mainland China coincided with an intense period of conflict in Iran. Despite the strategic significance of Cheng’s trip,
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the vast Asian chemicals industry into a tailspin. Deprived of the likes of Qatari natural gas and Saudi Arabian oil, the region’s fertilizer and plastics plants are slowing production or even shutting down. Everywhere except China, that is. In petrochemicals, China is unique. As well as a traditional industry that uses oil and gas as feedstock, it has parallel output that relies on its abundant domestic coal. Unsurprisingly, India and other regional powers want to copy and paste the Chinese method. This would not be easy — or climate friendly. The
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
US President Donald Trump recently repeated his claim that “Taiwan stole America’s chip industry,” reigniting public debate on the issue. As a former Taiwanese minister of economic affairs and an entrepreneur deeply involved in semiconductor supply chain development, I feel a responsibility to clarify this misunderstanding. From the perspective of global industrial evolution and the economic principle of comparative advantage, such a statement appears overly simplistic and risks obscuring the essence of the issue. The rise of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry was not built on “replacing America,” but rather emerged as a result of countries pursuing different development paths within the
RSS