Connect with us

Published

on

If you’re considering the environmental impact of hosting an event, you might focus on logistics like energy efficiency, the food you serve, or the event materials distributed to attendees. While focusing on these types of areas can help soften the event’s environmental footprint and greenhouse gas emissions, it’s hard to build a truly sustainable event based on operational choices alone.

The problem is that events, especially large ones like conferences or major sporting events, tend to involve decisions outside your control, like how attendees travel to your event and how they consume resources at the event venue. These factors can create a significant negative impact, even when sustainability measures are in place.

Carbon emissions from people flying in to attend, one of the largest contributors to event related greenhouse gasses, can easily overshadow the emissions you avoid by reusing name badge lanyards from previous events, for example. And you might put out compost bins next to landfill and recycling containers, but at a busy, crowded event, an attendee might haphazardly throw whatever trash they have on hand into whatever bin they first see.

That’s not to say you shouldn’t try to focus on logistics, as sustainability isn’t all or nothing. Every step helps. And you may be able to make meaningful progress toward sustainability goals, based on choices like venue location, reducing reliance on traditional power plants, and improving energy savings through more efficient or renewable energy sources, such as swapping diesel generators for solar ones.

But if you really want to make your event net zero or at least get closer to minimizing environmental impacts, buying high quality carbon credits and other environmental credits, like renewable energy certificates, is often critical.

Doing so isn’t a shortcut to event sustainability. Instead, carbon credits can help you account for the areas outside your control, like travel emissions, as well as taking responsibility for the emissions impact of all the little details that you cannot reduce or avoid. Many carbon credit projects work to store carbon or support initiatives where emissions are actively reduced or carbon removed from the atmosphere, often at a large scale.

To ensure credibility, it’s important that carbon credits follow strict verification standards aligned with global frameworks like those supported by the United Nations. This helps prevent issues like double counting, where the same emissions reduction is claimed more than once.

Terrapass makes it easy to buy carbon credits for both individuals and businesses. You can buy credits that align with emissions from specific events like weddings, those that help address the impact of flying, or other personal or corporate packages based on your emissions goals.

Case Study: The Olympics

How Carbon Credits Help Address Residual Emissions from Large Events

The Olympics haven’t always had the best environmental reputation, such as with the legacy of host cities spinning up massive new sporting facilities that soon become abandoned. Recent Olympic Games, however, have made environmental sustainability and social responsibility more of a focal point.

For example, the Paris 2024 Games included significant sustainability efforts, such as with 95 percent of the venues being temporary or from preexisting infrastructure. Event organizers also added grid connections so that nearly all energy consumption came from renewable sources, reducing dependence on fossil fuel-based power plants and increasing overall energy savings, instead of relying as much on sources like diesel generators.

Yet despite reducing emissions by more than half compared to the preceding Rio and London summer Olympics, the Paris Games still had a carbon footprint of 1.59 million tCO2e, which was more than Netflix’s total Scope 1 to 3 emissions that year, for comparison. Nearly half of those emissions came from spectators traveling to the Games, indicating how hard it is to cut your way to zero while still maintaining the power of live events.

So, Paris 2024 spent €12.1 million on carbon sequestration and avoidance credits that matched the 1.59 million tCO2e residual emissions total. This included financing projects such as cooking systems in several African countries, solar projects in Senegal and Vietnam, deforestation protection in Guatemala and Kenya, and mangrove restoration in Senegal. These types of initiatives help store carbon and contribute to carbon removed from the atmosphere on a large scale. The Organising Committee also financed some forestry projects within France to more directly compensate for emissions within its control.

Another type of credit usage showed up recently during the Milano Cortina 2026 Olympics. Their commitment to using virtually all clean electricity during the Games was made possible in part by Italian electricity company Enel procuring Guarantees of Origin, essentially a European version of renewable energy certificates, that correspond with renewable energy, as PBS reported.

And for the upcoming LA 2028 Olympics, the host has established an internal carbon price as a way to incentivize efficiencies while also generating funds for the LA28 Resilience Champions Fund. This will finance local improvements rather than international carbon offsets. For example, the fund will focus on areas including cooling solutions like native tree planting, wildfire resilience such as by planting fire resilient native plants, and ocean protection such as through beach cleanups.

Going forward, carbon credits could become even more important to Olympic events, considering that in 2020, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) set a requirement that, starting in 2030, all host cities would need to go even further by making the Games climate positive. Granted, that has arguably since been softened, such as with Brisbane 2032’s contract being adjusted to make being climate positive more of a goal than a necessity.

Still, carbon credits and similar financing mechanisms will likely continue to provide ways for host cities to address unavoidable emissions, such as those associated with flying, while reducing their overall negative impact. In addition to addressing emissions, carbon credits also typically provide co benefits that support health and other positive outcomes in local communities.

Terrapass offers carbon credits across a broad range of project types, such as reforestation and landfill gas capture. You can support a mix of projects and their associated benefits with a monthly subscription of carbon credits for just $8.50 per employee that offsets what many businesses emit during normal operations, or you could build a carbon credit portfolio that aligns more with specific events if you’re hosting.

Using Carbon Offsets for Your Own Events

While you’re probably not hosting an Olympic sized event, similar strategies can be scaled to all sorts of other sustainable event planning, ranging from conferences to parties.

To fully balance emissions, an event organizer would ideally calculate total emissions. Depending on the scale of your event, this might require working with a third-party sustainability consultant that can assist with carbon accounting, or you might be able to use online carbon footprint calculators.

Even if you can’t map out all of your emissions, you might calculate some of the largest sources, like flight emissions. A virtual event might avoid a big chunk of these travel emissions, but that might run counter to your goals of facilitating in person bonding that’s hard to replicate online. So, if you’re hosting a company retreat in another city, for example, you could add up the flight miles among your employees and calculate the associated emissions.

While this doesn’t account for everything, such as on-site emissions like hotel energy usage and food, it can give you a good starting point. By at least purchasing flight carbon offsets, organizers can take responsibility for what is typically one of the largest emissions components of any large event, particularly those tied to greenhouse gasses. Meanwhile, you can make operational choices for your corporate event, like choosing a sustainable venue, reducing reliance on fossil fuel-based power plants, and improving energy savings through efficient practices.

You also may be able to buy carbon credits that align with the approximate emissions from specific types of events. For example, Terrapass sells carbon offsets for weddings, which you can scale according to how many guests you have and whether you also want to account for honeymoon emissions and the impact on water systems.

Whether you’re hosting a personal event or a large corporate one, Terrapass offers a mix of ready to buy carbon offset packages, or our team of sustainability experts can help you develop a custom carbon offset plan as you aim to balance your carbon footprint. By supporting verified projects that operate at a large scale, you can address emissions responsibly while contributing to meaningful climate solutions.

Talk to a Sustainability Expert Today

The post How Carbon Credits Help Address Residual Emissions From Large Events appeared first on Terrapass.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

MRV and Additionality: The Two Questions Your Auditor Will Ask First

Published

on

What auditors actually test, where projects actually fail, and the contract clauses that protect you before signature.

The meeting happens about fourteen months after the contract was signed. Your assurance provider has reached the nature-based investment line in your Scope 3 file, and the partner across the table has exactly two questions. How do you know the reductions happened? And how do you know they would not have happened anyway?

The first question is MRV: measurement, reporting, and verification. The second is additionality. Between them, they decide whether your nature-based investment counts, in your inventory, in your disclosure, and in front of your board. Everything else in the project documentation is supporting material for these two answers.

This article walks through what each question actually tests, where projects most commonly fail, what digital MRV has changed (and what it has not), and the contract clauses that protect you. The goal is to give you the diligence framework before you sign, because after the credit issues is the wrong time to discover the answers were weak.

What MRV actually verifies

MRV is the machinery that turns a field intervention into a defensible number. Measurement covers the data: biomass surveys, soil sampling, remote sensing, activity records from participating farms. Reporting covers the translation of that data into claimed reductions under a recognised methodology. Verification covers the independent check: an accredited third party tests the reporting against the methodology and the evidence.

The methodologies live in registries. Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard and the Gold Standard are the two largest for nature-based projects, and each publishes the methodology documents, monitoring requirements, and verification protocols that a project must follow. The ICVCM Assessment Framework now sits above the registries, assessing whole methodologies against the Core Carbon Principles and granting the CCP label to those that pass.

For a buyer, the practical questions are concrete. What is the monitoring frequency, and is it specified in the project design document or left vague? Who is the verifier, how were they selected, and how often do they rotate? What raw data do you, the buyer, get access to, and in what format? A project that answers these in writing is a different procurement than one that answers them in a sales call.

What additionality actually proves

Additionality asks whether the intervention caused the reduction, or whether the reduction would have happened anyway. The test is a counterfactual: what would this landscape, this farm, this forest have done without the project’s money?

Three forms matter in practice. Financial additionality asks whether the project needed the carbon revenue to proceed. Regulatory additionality asks whether the activity was already required by law. Common-practice additionality asks whether the activity is already standard in the region, in which case paying for it buys you nothing the world was not getting for free.

The reason additionality dominates audit conversations is recent history. Research published in 2023, including the Science paper examined at length in our piece on conventional offsets and boardroom credibility, found that a large share of REDD+ credits failed the counterfactual test because baselines were inflated. The market response was a wave of methodology revisions at Verra and the arrival of independent ratings agencies whose entire business is re-testing additionality claims. The Carbon Credit Quality Initiative publishes transparent scoring of methodologies on exactly this dimension, and it is free to consult before you sign anything.

Where projects most commonly fail the test

Five failure modes account for most of the wreckage.

  • Inflated baselines. The counterfactual assumes more deforestation, more degradation, or lower yields than the evidence supports. The claimed reduction is the gap between reality and the baseline, so an inflated baseline manufactures reductions from nothing.
  • Unaccounted leakage. The project protects one forest and the logging moves to the next valley. The methodology is supposed to net this out; weak projects estimate it optimistically.
  • Thin permanence protection. Nature-based carbon can reverse: fire, pest, drought, or a change of landowner. Buffer pools and insurance mechanisms exist for this, but their adequacy varies enormously between projects.
  • Attribution and double counting. In supply chain settings, the same reduction can be claimed by the supplier, the buyer, and a credit purchaser unless contracts prevent it. Our Insetting vs Offsetting piece covers the inventory rules; the point here is that the auditor will ask who else is counting this tonne.
  • Stale monitoring. Data collected at validation and never refreshed. The IPCC AR6 Working Group III land-sector chapter documents how quickly carbon stocks respond to disturbance; a three-year-old measurement is a historical artifact, not a current claim.

What digital MRV changes, and what it does not

Digital MRV is the genuine improvement in the field. Satellite remote sensing, including the free archives at NASA Earthdata, allows biomass and land-cover change to be monitored continuously rather than at multi-year verification intervals. Soil carbon models calibrated with physical sampling reduce the cost of agricultural measurement. The practical effect is more frequent data at lower cost, which compresses the window in which a problem can hide.

What digital MRV does not change is judgment. Baselines are still human decisions about counterfactuals. Additionality is still an argument, not a measurement. Research groups such as the Oxford Smith School have been clear on this point: better sensors improve the M in MRV, but the integrity questions live in the assumptions, and assumptions need governance, not gadgets.

For a buyer, the test is simple. Ask the provider what is measured by instrument, what is estimated by model, and what is assumed by methodology. A provider who can answer that question crisply understands their own evidence chain. A provider who cannot is selling you their confidence rather than their data.

What to require in your contract

The diligence above converts into five contract clauses.

  • Monitoring cadence and buyer data access, specified by dataset and frequency.
  • Verifier independence, named accreditation, and rotation terms.
  • Baseline revision triggers, so the counterfactual updates when the methodology or the evidence changes.
  • Reversal liability and buffer adequacy, with the mechanism named and sized.
  • Documentation handover in audit-ready form, so the evidence file your assurance provider needs already exists.

None of these clauses is exotic. All of them are absent from weak contracts, and their absence is the most reliable early signal that the MRV and additionality answers will be weak too.

If you are evaluating a nature-based investment and want the MRV and additionality stress-tested before signature rather than after, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can run that review against any project on your shortlist, and design nature-based supply chain investments where the evidence chain is built audit-first. Schedule a consultation.

Sources and further reading

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

The EU’s New Green Claims Rules and Carbon Credits

Published

on

EU Directive: Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT)

The EU Directive, Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT), takes effect on September 27, 2026.(1) The goal of ECGT is to protect consumers by ensuring that environmental claims are fair, understandable, and reliable. This regulation does create a new compliance requirement for businesses, but it also provides sustainability and marketing teams with important guidance that helps create consistency in sustainability communications.

Key takeaways

  • ECGT takes effect September 27, 2026, and prohibits claims that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive environmental impact based on offsetting alone.
  • Named example phrases the regulation prohibits include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint.
  • ECGT does not want to deter investment in carbon credits. It wants companies to communicate the real benefits of the projects they support instead.
  • SBTi’s guidance recommends framing carbon credits as taking responsibility for ongoing emissions, not as making a product or company neutral.
  • Voluntary carbon projects deliver real climate progress: reducing super-pollutants, protecting and restoring ecosystems, and supporting communities.

Regarding carbon credits specifically, voluntary carbon projects deliver important climate progress and environmental benefits that provide many talking points for companies. They reduce climate super-pollutants by removing industrial emissions like methane, N2O, HFCs and others. They protect and restore valuable ecosystems and carbon sinks like forests, mangroves and grasslands. They help communities by reducing local pollution, creating employment opportunities, improving access to healthcare, and more.

The Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), a global leader in business climate action, concludes that alongside aggressive decarbonization, we should also use high quality carbon credits to take responsibility for our ongoing emissions. SBTi recognizes that carbon credits are important “to help limit temperature overshoot, mitigate transition risks, and support climate solutions.”(2)

ECGT language on carbon offsetting says that they do not want to deter investment in carbon credits. They just want companies to focus on communicating the benefits of the projects they support and avoid claims beyond the scope of carbon credits, which is good for everyone, companies and consumers alike.

The regulation reinforces that carbon credits do not change the sustainability of your products, so carbon credit buyers should not suggest that their products are more sustainable because of carbon credits. Instead, companies need to promote their climate contributions as a way to compensate or take responsibility for their carbon emissions by supporting projects that do great things like reducing global carbon emissions, reducing pollution, preventing deforestation, restoring forests, and more.

ECGT language related to carbon offsetting

The regulation is particularly focused on prohibiting claims, based on offsetting greenhouse gas emissions, that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. These claims are prohibited in all circumstances because they mislead consumers into believing the claim relates to the product itself, or to how it was made and supplied, or into thinking that using the product carries no environmental impact at all.

Named examples of prohibited claims include:

  • climate neutral
  • CO2 neutral certified
  • carbon positive
  • climate net zero
  • climate compensated
  • reduced climate impact
  • limited CO2 footprint

These claims are only allowed when they rest on a product’s actual lifecycle impact, not on offsetting emissions outside that product’s value chain, since the two are not equivalent. This prohibition does not stop companies from advertising their investments in environmental initiatives, including carbon credit projects, as long as they present that information in a way that is not misleading and that meets the other requirements of Union law.(1)

SBTi also provides guidance on climate contribution language in its Corporate Net Zero Standard Version 2.0 Draft for Second Public Consultation, November 2025. While the SBTi language is fairly technical, it has a good framework for crafting a climate contribution message.

SBTi Language for Carbon Credits(3)

  • Take responsibility for ongoing emissions by delivering mitigation impact contributions
  • Carbon credits certify the mitigation outcomes of projects that reduce, avoid, or remove carbon emissions
  • Activities that reduce emissions from emission sources not located within the company’s value chain
  • Activities that conserve, protect, and enhance natural carbon sinks
  • Activities that capture and store carbon in storage pools

SBTi’s draft standard also walks through sample claim language for this kind of contribution. In general, the samples move from a simple percentage statement, to naming a specific verified tonnage tied to that percentage, to a fuller statement that breaks the tonnage into reductions versus removals. Across all three, the framing stays consistent: a company took responsibility for a defined share of its ongoing emissions over a set period, by funding a specific, verified amount of mitigation, achieved through emission reductions or removals.(3)

FAQ: ECGT and Carbon Credit Claims

When does the ECGT directive take effect?

The rules apply across the EU from September 27, 2026, after member states transposed the directive into national law by March 27, 2026.

Does ECGT ban carbon offsetting?

No. It bans specific marketing claims that a product or service is environmentally neutral, reduced impact, or positive based on offsetting. Advertising investment in carbon credit projects themselves is still allowed if it is not misleading.

What phrases does ECGT specifically prohibit?

Named examples include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint, when those claims are based on offsetting rather than a product’s actual lifecycle impact.

How should a company describe its carbon credit purchases instead?

SBTi’s guidance recommends stating the specific verified tonnage of emissions reductions or removals funded and describing that as taking responsibility for a defined share of ongoing emissions, rather than claiming the company or product is neutral.

Does this rule apply to company level sustainability claims too?

ECGT is focused on claims about specific products and services in consumer marketing. Broader company level sustainability communication is a separate matter still governed by other existing rules.

While ECGT does add a new compliance burden for businesses, it helps create consistency in sustainability messaging that is important to building confidence in voluntary carbon projects and scaling the industry to help us achieve progress on global carbon emissions.

Disclaimer: Terrapass does not provide legal or regulatory advice. Any interpretation of regulation must be approved by your legal representative.

References:
(1) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/825/oj
(2) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/Corporate-Net-Zero-Standard-version-2.pdf
(3) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/CNZS-V2-Second-Consultation-Draft.pdf

The post The EU’s New Green Claims Rules and Carbon Credits appeared first on Terrapass.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Want a simpler way to buy carbon credits? Discover our carbon marketplace

Published

on

Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com