The legitimation of contested carbon markets after Paris – empirical insights from market stakeholders

Blum, Mareike

doi:10.1080/1523908x.2019.1697658

Cited by 14 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Michaelowa et al, 2018;Obergassel et al, 2015;Schneider, Füssler, La Hoz Theuer, et al, 2017;Schneider et al, 2019). The analysis was further complemented by insights from the peer reviewed literature (inter alia:, Blum, 2020;Blum & Lövbrand, 2019;Lang et al, 2019) as well as the literature cited therein] as well as from conducting participatory observation of several pertinent UNFCCC side events, expert workshops and webinars organized by ICROA. The authors observed and contributed to these discussions in their role as experts.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With the broader realization of this threat, thinking about alternative approaches kicked-off. Shifting from the mere offsetting logic towards assisting developing countries in achieving their NDC has been identified as one idea in the legitimation process (Blum, 2020). In this process, the Gold Standard suggested the development of 'certified statements of emission reductions' as a new product that would certify a contribution to achieving the host country target but could not be used as offsets to support neutrality claims.…”

Section: Understanding the Challengementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, early literature studied the functioning of the voluntary carbon market and its potential benefits and challenges in the broader context of the emerging practice of carbon offsetting (Bellassen & Leguet, 2007;Bumpus & Liverman, 2008;Corbera et al, 2009;Gillenwater et al, 2007). By analysing narratives and discourses, several scholars explored the legitimacy of voluntary carbon offsetting (Bäckstrand & Lövbrand, 2006;Blum & Lövbrand, 2019;Lovell et al, 2009), including in the post-Paris era (Blum, 2020;Blum & Lövbrand, 2019), and even identified different 'thought spaces' of how the voluntary carbon market could be conceptualized in the future (Lang et al, 2019). Some scholars have also explored the voluntary carbon market's potential to raise climate ambition (Kreibich & Obergassel, 2019a;Streck, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Caught in between: credibility and feasibility of the voluntary carbon market post-2020

Kreibich

Hermwille

2021

Climate Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On the one hand, a large number of companies have committed to achieve net zero emissions and many of them foresee to offset some remaining emissions with carbon credits, suggesting a surge of future demand. Yet, the supply side of the voluntary carbon market is struggling to align its business model with the new legal architecture of the Paris Agreement. This article juxtaposes these two perspectives. It provides an overview of the plans of 482 major companies with some form of neutrality/net zero pledge and traces the struggle on the supply side of the voluntary carbon market to come up with a viable business model that ensures environmental integrity and contributes to achieving the objectives of the Paris Agreement. Our analysis finds that if carbon credits are used to offset remaining emissions against neutrality objectives, these credits need to be accounted against the host countries' Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to ensure environmental integrity. Yet, operationalizing this approach is challenging and will require innovative solutions and political support. Key policy insights:. There is a growing mismatch between the faith placed in carbon credits by private sector companies and the continued quest for a common position of the main suppliers of the voluntary carbon market. . The voluntary carbon market has not yet found a way to align itself with the new legal architecture of the Paris Agreement in a credible and legitimate way. . Public policy support at the national and international level will be needed to operationalize a robust approach for the market's future activities.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Understanding the Challengementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Caught in between: credibility and feasibility of the voluntary carbon market post-2020

Kreibich

Hermwille

2021

Climate Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Often, these involve avoided emissions by third parties -a controversial approach analogous to the protection offsets (averted loss) we refer to here vis-à-vis biodiversity (Blum 2020). They also do not consider the requirement to reduce global emissions by 3% to 7% per year in absolute terms if we are to comply with the Paris Agreement.…”

Section: Biodiversity Net Gain In a Post-2020 Worldmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aligning ecological compensation policies with the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework to achieve real net gain in biodiversity

Simmonds¹,

Hase²,

Quétier³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasingly, government and corporate policies on ecological compensation (e.g. offsetting) are requiring ‘net gain’ outcomes for biodiversity. This presents an opportunity to align development with the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework’s (GBF) ambition for overall biodiversity recovery. In this perspective, we describe three conditions that should be accounted for in establishing or revising net gain policies to align their outcomes with the Post-2020 GBF: namely, a requirement for residual losses from development to be compensated for by (1) absolute gains, which are (2) scaled to the achievement of explicit biodiversity targets, where (3) gains are ecologically feasible. We show that few current policies meet these conditions, and thus we demonstrate a major disconnect between existing biodiversity net gain approaches and the achievement of the Post-2020 GBF milestones and goals. We conclude by describing how this gap can be bridged through a novel ecological compensation framework.

show abstract

“…Due to lagging regulatory actions, and an interest to remain unregulated, corporate players are increasingly leading in climate action through pledges in VCMs that meet or exceed the analogous mandates of compliance markets. However, there are a number of issues and critiques concerning the design, function, and scale-up of VCMs (Blum, 2020). Critiques span from popular misunderstanding of carbon market economics, to fundamental flaws in their arrangements and implementation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Good Is Never Perfect: Why the Current Flaws of Voluntary Carbon Markets Are Services, Not Barriers to Successful Climate Change Action

Miltenberger

Jospe²,

Pittman

2021

Front. Clim.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The world's current level of climate change action does not match its ambitions to tackle the issue, and its ambitions do not currently meet the levels of action science recommends. Voluntary carbon markets (VCMs) are one option proposed to lessen those disparities, and have been both criticized and championed by various groups. Critiques note them as being opaque, flawed, and ineffective. Yet they demonstrate tremendous potential for impact and unprecedented levels of finance. We contend that the critiques of these markets are not only resolvable, but are unavoidable challenges that must be addressed on the path to mobilizing climate change ambition and achieving targets. Furthermore, we believe that by 2050, the current discrete market-based solutions in climate action will become internalized aspects of our economies rather than separate remediations. This goal of internalizing the externalities that cause climate change will result in massive, sustained decarbonization, rapid reorganization of global economies, and an extraordinary push to invent, solve, and scale strategies that facilitate the transition. Pricing carbon is a key contemporary step for transitioning to that future. Voluntary carbon markets are one means to catalyze this action and while needing improvements, should be given appropriate leeway to improve and fulfill that role.

show abstract

The legitimation of contested carbon markets after Paris – empirical insights from market stakeholders

Cited by 14 publications

References 39 publications

Caught in between: credibility and feasibility of the voluntary carbon market post-2020

Caught in between: credibility and feasibility of the voluntary carbon market post-2020

Aligning ecological compensation policies with the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework to achieve real net gain in biodiversity

The Good Is Never Perfect: Why the Current Flaws of Voluntary Carbon Markets Are Services, Not Barriers to Successful Climate Change Action

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About