A growing number of businesses are promising to combat the climate crisis by reducing their greenhouse-gas emissions to the extent they can. However, many companies find that they can’t completely remove their emissions, or reduce their emissions as fast as they might prefer. The challenge is especially tough for businesses that seek to be net-zero emission, which means removing the greenhouse gases from the air as they can put into it. For many they will need to use carbon credits for offsets of emissions that are difficult to remove through other means. It is estimated that the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM) was established by the Institute of International Finance (IIF) and with the support of McKinsey estimates that demand for carbon credits may rise by fifteen in 2030 or greater, and by a factor up to 100 by 2050. In the overall picture, the market for carbon credits could be worth more than $50 billion by 2030.
Carbon credit purchases on a voluntary basis (rather than to fulfill compliance requirements) is vital for other reasons, too. Voluntary carbon credits direct private finance to climate action projects which otherwise would not get off the ground. These projects may also have other benefits such as biodiversity protection environmental protection, pollution prevention, public health improvements, and job creation. Carbon credits also encourage the development of the technology needed to lower the price of the latest climate technologies. The scale-up of voluntary carbon markets would facilitate the mobilization of capital to the Global South, where there is the greatest opportunity for low-cost projects to reduce emissions from nature.
Given the demand for carbon credits that may ensue from international efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, it’s apparent that the world will require an unregulated carbon market that is large transparent, transparent, verifiable and environmentally robust. However, the current market is complex and fragmented. Some credits were found to represent emissions reductions that were uncertain at most. Limited pricing data make it difficult for buyers to judge if they’re paying an appropriate price, and for the suppliers to control the risk they face by financing and working on carbon reduction projects without knowing what price buyers will eventually pay to purchase carbon credit. In this article, which is based on McKinsey’s research for a new report by the TSVCM, we look at these issues and how market participants, standard-setting organizations, financial institutions, market-infrastructure providers, and other constituencies might address them to scale up the voluntary carbon market.
Carbon credits can help companies to meet their climate-change goals
In this year’s Paris Agreement, nearly 200 nations have agreed to the global target of limiting the rise in temperatures by 2.0 degree Celsius higher than preindustrial norms and, ideally, 1.5 degrees. In order to achieve the 1.5-degree goal would require that global greenhouse gas emissions be reduced by 50 percent of the current level by 2030, and diminished to net zero by 2050. Many companies are aligning themselves with this agenda in just a year, the number of companies with pledges to net zero tripled from 500 in 2019 to more than 1,000 in 2020.
To reach the global net-zero target, companies will need to reduce their own carbon emissions as much as possible (while not forgetting to monitor and report on their progress, in order to be accountable and transparent that investors and other stakeholders are increasingly demand). In some businesses however, it’s extremely expensive to lower emissions using current technologies, even though the cost of these technologies might go down in the future. At certain businesses specific sources of emissions cannot be eliminated. For instance, the process of making cement at industrial scale typically involves the chemical reaction known as that is calcination. It accounts for a substantial portion of the industry’s carbon emissions. Due to these limitations the pathway to reduce emissions to an 1.5-degree warming goal effectively calls for “negative emissions” which are achieved by removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Learn more at carbon.credit.
Purchase of carbon credits is one method for companies to address emissions they are unable to eliminate. Carbon credits are certificates that indicate the amount of greenhouse gases that have been kept out of the atmosphere or eliminated from it. While carbon credits have been in use for decades, the unregulated demand for them has grown substantially in recent times. McKinsey estimates that by 2020, buyers will retire carbon credits in the amount of 95 million tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e), which will be nearly twice more than in 2017.
In the process of decarbonizing the global economy increase and demand for voluntary carbon credits may continue to increase. Based on the reported demand in carbon credits projections of demand from the experts surveyed by TSVCM as well as the volume of negative emissions required for reducing emissions in line to the 1.5-degree warming goal, McKinsey estimates that annual global demand for carbon credits could be upwards of 1.5 and 2.0 gigatons of carbon dioxide (GtCO2) by 2030 and up to 7 to 13 GtCO2 in 2050 (Exhibit 2). Based on the various price scenarios and the drivers behind them the size of the market in 2030 could be as low as $5 billion to $30 billion at the low range and over $50 billion at the high end.
Although the rise in the demand for carbon credits is substantial, research by McKinsey suggests that the demand for carbon credits in 2030 will be met by the potential annual amount of carbon credits available between 8 and 12 GtCO2 annually. Carbon credits could come in four different categories: avoided natural loss (including deforestation) and sequestration based on nature, for example, reforestation or reduction of emissions such methane released from landfills and the removal of technology-based carbon dioxide out of the air.
However, several factors could make it challenging to mobilize the entire potential supply and bring it to market. The creation of projects would have to ramp up at a rapid pace. The majority of the amount of avoided loss of nature and natural sequestration is concentrated in only a small number of countries. Every project has risks and some types may struggle to attract financing because of the long lag times between the first purchase and eventually selling of credits. Once these challenges are accounted for, the estimated amount of carbon credits will drop to 1 to 5 GtCO2 annually in 2030.
These aren’t the only problems for buyers and sellers of carbon credits. Carbon credits of high-quality are rare because the accounting and verification processes differ, and also because credits have co-benefits (such as community economic development and protection of biodiversity) are not always clearly defined. When verifying the quality of new credits – an essential measure to maintain the integrity of the market–suppliers must endure long durations of lead time. In selling these credits, they are faced with unpredictable demand and rarely can fetch economical prices. Overall, the market is characterised by low liquidity, scarce funding, insufficient risk-management and the inaccessibility of data.
These issues are difficult, but they are not unsurmountable. Verification methodologies could be strengthened and verification processes made more efficient. More clear demand signals could provide suppliers with more confidence in their plans for the future and encourage lenders and investors to finance. These requirements can be met with the careful creation of a successful, large-scale carbon market that is voluntary.
Scaling up carbon markets for voluntary use requires a new plan of the course of action
A successful voluntary carbon market will require coordinated effort on a variety of fronts. In its report, the TSVCM found six distinct areas, spanning the carbon-credit value chain that can be a catalyst for the expansion of the carbon market that is voluntary.
Establishing common principles for defining and verifying carbon credits
The carbon market of today isn’t equipped with the liquidity needed for efficient trading, in part due to the fact that carbon credits are highly diverse. Each credit is characterized by attributes that are associated to the project that it is based on, such as the type of project or the region in which it was executed. These attributes affect the price of the credit as buyers are able to evaluate the value of additional attributes in different ways. In general, the lack of consistency among credits is a reason why matching an individual buyer with the appropriate provider is a slow and inefficient procedure that is done in a counter.
The matching between buyers and suppliers would be more effective when all credit accounts could be described through common features. The first category of characteristics pertains to quality. The criteria for quality, set forth in “core carbon principles” will provide a base for determining whether carbon credits actually represent emissions reductions. The second set of attributes would cover the additional attributes of the carbon credit. The standardization of these attributes into the same taxonomy will help buyers and sellers to sell credits and buyers to find credits that are suitable for their needs.
The development of contracts with standardized terms
In the market for voluntary carbon The heterogeneity in carbon credits means that credits that are specific to a particular type are traded in volumes too small to provide accurate daily price signals. Making carbon credits more consistent would consolidate trading activity around the various types of credit as well as increase liquidity on exchanges.
After the establishment of the core carbon principles and standard attributes outlined in the previous paragraph, exchanges may develop “reference contracts” for carbon trading. Reference contracts could combine an initial contract, built on the carbon core principles, with additional attributes which are defined in accordance with a standard taxonomy and priced separately. Core contracts would facilitate companies to do things like purchasing large amounts of carbon credits simultaneously: they could make bids for credits which meet certain criteria, and the market would aggregate smaller amounts of credits to match their bids.
Another benefit of reference contracts is the possibility of establishing clearly defined daily market prices. After reference contracts have been created, many participants will continue to trades over the over the counter (OTC). Prices for the credit that is traded through reference contracts could establish a starting point for negotiations of OTC trades. Other characteristics set at a different price.
© All Rights Reserved.