Connect with us

Published

on

Microsoft and Carbon Direct Set New Standards for Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal

Carbon Direct and Microsoft have announced a collaboration to develop a new standard for marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR). This standard aims to ensure that ocean-based carbon removal methods are high-quality, scientifically sound, and effective in reducing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

With the urgency of climate change growing, setting these standards is key. They are essential for the credibility and success of carbon removal efforts.

Carbon Direct helps companies like Microsoft, JPMorgan Chase, and JetBlue reduce their carbon footprint. The company uses science to help them set climate goals, track emissions, and reduce them. They’re also helping those businesses add carbon removal solutions to their plans, making sure their actions have a real, positive impact on the environment.

The Urgency of Marine Carbon Removal: A Vital Tool for Climate Action

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emphasizes that limiting global warming to 1.5°C calls for drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The agency also highlights the need to remove large amounts of carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the air. 

The ocean, covering over 70% of the Earth’s surface, plays a crucial role in this process. It currently takes in about 30% of human-made CO₂ emissions. This shows its potential as a major carbon sink. ​

Marine carbon dioxide removal uses different techniques to help the ocean capture and store CO₂ better. Two prominent methods include:​

Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement (OAE): 

This method adds alkaline substances like crushed limestone or olivine to seawater. This increases the water’s alkalinity. Higher alkalinity helps change CO₂ into stable bicarbonate and carbonate. This process traps CO₂ for a long time. 

OAE carbon removal
Source: Carbon Direct

Direct Ocean Removal (DOR): 

This method shifts seawater’s carbonate equilibrium to extract CO₂ as either gaseous CO₂ or mineral carbonates. DOR allows monitoring CO₂ accurately and removes the need for extra materials. However, it is energy-intensive and expensive because of the chemical processes used.

DOR carbon removal
Source: Carbon Direct

mCDR’s Role in Meeting Climate Goals: The Road to 9 Gigatonnes

The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal report (2nd Edition, 2024) estimates that by 2050, the world has to remove 7–9 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO₂ each year. This is essential to meet the climate goals set by the Paris Agreement. 

global carbon budget
Source: Climate.gov Figure 1. The global carbon budget for 2022 showing the approximate size of CO2 emissions sources and natural sinks compared to the projected size of the CDR sink for 2050 and 2100 needed to meet the targets of the Paris Agreement (values from Friedlingstein et al., 2022 and Minx et al., 2018).

Presently, about 2 GtCO₂ are removed each year. This mainly happens through methods like afforestation and reforestation. To bridge this gap, innovative approaches like mCDR are gaining attention.

However, scientists warn that relying on carbon removal should not detract from the imperative to reduce emissions. mCDR can help with mitigation efforts, but it can’t replace the need for low-carbon energy systems and better energy efficiency. ​

Moreover, the natural absorption causes ocean acidification. This harms marine ecosystems. Also, concerns exist about their long-term effectiveness, environmental risks, and measurement challenges.

Improving the ocean’s ability to store CO₂ using mCDR methods could help reduce these impacts and aid in stabilizing the climate. The new standard seeks to address these issues by setting clear criteria for evaluating mCDR projects.

Dr. Matthew Potts, Chief Science Officer at Carbon Direct, remarked: 

“mCDR is at a pivotal moment. Achieving high-quality outcomes requires rigorous monitoring, transparency, and scientific integrity to ensure safe and effective deployment…Given the vast spatial scale, the data-intensive nature of ocean-based carbon removal, and the deep connection between these projects and marine ecosystems, clear standards are essential for responsible development.”

As the CarbonCredits team reached out to Carbon Direct for more insights, Antaeres Antoniuk-Pablant, PhD, Senior Decarbonization Scientist, provided meaningful responses to the following questions.

Q. What are the biggest risks associated with large-scale mCDR deployment, and how do these new criteria address those challenges?

A: Human activities already impact ocean chemistry in uncontrolled ways. mCDR offers a controlled, science-based approach that may help ecosystems. The new criteria use models and in-ocean testing to track phytoplankton and marine life health. They also assess community impacts and require proactive engagement with local and Indigenous groups to ensure environmental and social responsibility.

Q. What steps should project developers take to ensure their solutions align with the latest scientific understanding and meet the high-quality standards set by Carbon Direct and Microsoft?

A. mCDR developers must follow strict environmental and carbon monitoring (eMRV/MRV), update methods with new research, and conduct baseline ecosystem assessments. Transparent data sharing and compliance with international laws are essential. Developers should also educate and consult stakeholders, ensuring their projects minimize risks and align with high-quality standards set by Carbon Direct and Microsoft.

A High Bar for Quality: The mCDR Standard Framework

To ensure that mCDR projects are effective and responsible, Carbon Direct and Microsoft have outlined specific criteria focusing on key principles, including:​

  • Environmental Integrity. Projects must demonstrably remove CO₂ without causing harm to marine ecosystems. This includes assessing potential impacts on biodiversity, water chemistry, and ecological balance.​
  • Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV). Robust MRV protocols are essential to accurately quantify the amount of CO₂ removed and ensure transparency. This involves establishing baselines, continuous monitoring, and third-party verification to build trust and credibility.​
  • Durability. The sequestered carbon should remain stored for extended periods, ideally centuries or longer. Assessing the permanence of storage solutions is critical to prevent the re-release of CO₂ into the atmosphere.​
  • Social Impact. Engaging local communities and stakeholders is vital. Projects should consider social, economic, and cultural factors, ensuring that they do not adversely affect livelihoods and that benefits are equitably distributed.​
  • Transparency and Verification. Clear documentation and third-party reviews are necessary to maintain accountability.

The addendum to the 2024 edition of the mCDR criteria emphasizes improving the scientific basis for evaluating these projects. It highlights the importance of:

  • Baseline Measurements: Establishing pre-project conditions to accurately assess changes in carbon levels.
  • Leakage Prevention: Ensuring that carbon removal in one area does not lead to increased emissions elsewhere.
  • Ecosystem Impacts: Evaluating how mCDR affects biodiversity, ocean chemistry, and marine life.
  • Scalability and Feasibility: Assessing whether projects can be effectively expanded without unintended consequences.

These criteria aim to provide a framework for developing mCDR projects that are scientifically valid, ethical, and environmentally friendly.

Brian Marrs, Senior Director, Energy Markets at Microsoft, noted: 

“With rapid technological progress and increased investment, marine carbon dioxide removal has the potential to deliver durable, large-scale CO₂ removal—potentially billions of tonnes per year in the coming decades…By establishing rigorous new mCDR criteria, we aim to help project developers build high-integrity solutions that maximize both environmental and social benefits.”

Microsoft’s Commitment to Carbon Removal: A Leading Example

Microsoft has been actively investing in carbon removal solutions as part of its commitment to becoming carbon-negative by 2030. The company has signed deals for direct air capture and nature-based carbon removal

Microsoft 2030 carbon negative goal

In January 2025, Microsoft signed a 25-year deal with Chestnut Carbon. They will buy more than 7 million tons of carbon removal credits. These credits come from forest projects in Arkansas, Texas, and Louisiana.

In addition to forest restoration, Microsoft has explored ocean-based carbon removal methods. In March 2023, the company partnered with Running Tide to remove up to 12,000 tons of carbon through an ocean-based carbon removal system. 

These initiatives show Microsoft’s commitment to different carbon removal methods. As such, it helps build a strong carbon removal market. Partnering with Carbon Direct on an mCDR standard aligns with its goal of ensuring that carbon credits and removal projects meet rigorous standards.

The Path Forward for Marine Carbon Solutions

A standard framework for mCDR will build trust in these projects. This will also draw more investment. With better technology and research, marine carbon removal may become key in global climate plans. However, careful implementation is needed to avoid unintended ecological damage.

With this collaboration, Microsoft and Carbon Direct aim to create a science-backed, transparent approach that ensures mCDR contributes meaningfully to climate mitigation.

The post Microsoft and Carbon Direct Set New Standards for Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

SBTi Net-Zero Standard V2: What the Revision Means for Every Business

Published

on

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) just rolled out a major revision to its Net-Zero Standard, Version 2.0. It changes how companies set climate targets, how much room they actually have to hit those targets, and how carbon credits fit into a credible net-zero strategy. Below, we break down what’s changing, when it takes effect, and why it matters even if your business isn’t formally an SBTi participant.

Key takeaways

  • SBTi is the default reference point for corporate climate action: 51% of Fortune Global 500 companies now hold net-zero targets, up from 8% in 2020, and over 11,000 organizations worldwide have SBTi-validated targets.
  • Net Zero Standard V2 redefines climate leadership as reducing emissions and mitigating ongoing emissions, not reduction alone.
  • The new standard adds flexibility through five-year cycles, a “best efforts” standard, and an Asset Transition Method for companies whose path to net-zero doesn’t fit a straight-line trajectory.
  • Voluntary carbon credits are formally recognized for the first time, with reduction and removal credits accepted from 2027, and removals required from 2035.
  • Companies with 2030 targets keep using V1 for their current cycle and move to V2 in 2028; companies without targets can start using V2 on February 1, 2027.

Why every business needs to understand the SBTi Net-Zero Standard revision

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has become the default reference point for credible corporate climate action. Net-zero targets are now held by 51% of Fortune Global 500 (FG500) companies, up dramatically from just 8% in 2020, and more than 11,000 organizations worldwide have set SBTi-validated targets.

However, SBTi’s influence extends well beyond the companies formally participating in the program. Every business in the value chain of an SBTi participant will have to reduce its own carbon emissions, and businesses that aren’t SBTi participants themselves still look to the program for guidance on climate action.

In short, SBTi gives every business a credible blueprint for climate action, and companies that follow its principles can pursue climate action with confidence, whether or not they’re formally part of the program.

How will the Net Zero Standard revision affect business climate action?

SBTi participation is expected to grow. Despite strong target-setting participation among the F500, only 17% of companies use the SBTi Net Zero Standard V1 beyond target setting, largely because its rules have been seen as too rigid to apply in practice. Much of the Net Zero Standard revision has focused on creating more flexibility to enable higher participation. Medium and small businesses will also increasingly feel pressure for climate action, since SBTi mandates that its participants reduce carbon emissions across their value chains.

Net Zero Standard V2 also redefines climate leadership: leading climate action now means reducing emissions and mitigating ongoing emissions. Reducing your own emissions while ignoring the emissions you continue to release along the way is no longer considered leadership. Supporting voluntary carbon projects with high-integrity carbon credits is now backed by the leading authority on corporate climate action.

What lessons shaped the Net Zero Standard V2 revision?

The revision reflects a few learnings about what actually drives climate progress, and how SBTi built those lessons into the new standard.

Net Zero Standard V1 Learnings Net Zero Standard V2 Implementation
Making real short-term progress is more important and more difficult than making big long-term promises Focus on short-term climate progress
Every company has a different path to net zero that doesn’t always fit generalized net-zero rules Create asset transition plans based on each company’s unique asset lifecycles and capital planning
We need to mitigate our ongoing emissions to keep global carbon emissions in check Reduce global carbon emissions by financing voluntary carbon projects with high-integrity carbon credits

What are the key changes between the old and new Net Zero Standard?

Both versions of the standard are grounded in net-zero by 2050. However, the old standard treated climate leadership as simply reducing emissions, expected a long-term commitment to net zero, based emission reduction targets on generalized net-zero goals, revoked status from companies that fell behind on targets, and ignored voluntary carbon projects entirely.

The new standard treats climate leadership as reducing emissions and mitigating ongoing emissions. It shifts the focus to short-term progress through five-year cycles, and it bases emission reduction targets on both the net-zero goal and a company’s own asset decarbonization plan. A new Asset Transition Method lets companies set decarbonization targets through asset plans with committed, verifiable steps; an ambitious but achievable path based on a company’s starting point, financial resources, and technology, with multiple pathways to reflect the unique opportunities and constraints of different industries and companies.

Crucially, the new standard moves to a “best efforts” basis that creates real flexibility on progress against targets. Businesses that miss their targets can keep their status if they’ve used “every lever” within their control, and minimum progress rules will be set out in the SBTi Assurance Manual.

Finally, the new standard formally uses voluntary carbon projects to mitigate ongoing emissions. From 2027 through 2034, this mitigation is recognized, and both carbon reduction and removal credits are accepted. From 2035 forward, mitigation with carbon removal credits becomes required, with durability matching between the removal and the emission it offsets.

Old Net Zero Standard New Net Zero Standard
Grounded in net-zero by 2050 Grounded in net-zero by 2050
Climate leadership is reducing emissions Climate leadership is reducing emissions and mitigating ongoing emissions
Make a long-term commitment to net-zero Focus on short-term progress in 5-year cycles
Emission reduction targets are based on net-zero goal
  • Emission reduction targets are based on net-zero goal and asset decarbonization plan
  • Adds SBTi’s Asset Transition Method
  • Decarbonization targets are set through asset plans with committed, verifiable steps
  • Ambitious but achievable path based on starting point, financial resources, technology
  • Multiple pathways for unique opportunities and constraints of industries and companies
Businesses who fall behind targets lose status
  • “Best efforts” basis creates flexibility on progress to targets
  • Businesses that miss targets can keep status if they used “every lever” in their control
  • Minimum progress rules will be provided in the SBTi Assurance Manual
Ignores voluntary carbon projects
  • Uses voluntary carbon projects to mitigate ongoing emissions
  • 2027–2034: Mitigation is recognized. Carbon reduction and removal credits are accepted.
  • 2035 forward: Mitigation with carbon removal credits is required, with durability matching.

When does the new Net Zero Standard take effect?

Companies with existing 2030 targets should continue using the old Net Zero Standard for their current cycle, and start using the new Net Zero Standard in 2028 to set targets for the next cycle (2030–2035).

Companies that don’t yet have targets can use the new Net Zero Standard starting February 1, 2027.

What are SBTi’s Category A and Category B companies?

The new Net Zero Standard splits companies into two categories, with different requirements attached to each.

Category A covers large companies from all countries and medium-sized companies from high-income countries. A company from any country qualifies if it meets at least one of: net turnover of €450 million or more, or 1,000 or more full-time employees. A company from a high-income country qualifies if its Scope 1 and 2 emissions are 10,000 tCO2e or more, or if it meets at least two of: balance sheet of €25 million or more, net turnover of €50 million or more, or 250 or more full-time employees.

Category B covers small companies from all countries and medium-sized companies from lower-income countries.

How do Scope 1 targets work under Net Zero Standard V2?

Scope 1 targets aim to transition companies to net-zero direct emissions by 2050 or sooner, and companies can choose from three approaches.

  1. Absolute emissions reduction follows a straight-line emissions trajectory from the target base year to the net-zero year.
  2. Emissions intensity reduction lets companies follow sector-specific pathways designed to reflect the reduction opportunities available in sectors like steel, cement, or chemicals.
  3. Asset transition is designed for companies whose capital stock turnover doesn’t follow a linear or sector pathway. These companies design a transition plan to operate existing assets efficiently and replace them with low-carbon assets, using predetermined milestones.

How do Scope 2 targets work under Net Zero Standard V2?

Scope 2 targets address emissions from purchased electricity through three pathways:

  1. Reducing electricity consumption,
  2. Reducing grid consumption by installing onsite or direct-line offsite clean energy generation, and
  3. Cleaning up the regional grid using market-based tools like PPAs, RECs, and GOs that drive clean energy development.

V2 introduces a dual Scope 2 framework requiring two separate targets, with an overall goal of 100% low-carbon electricity by 2040.

The location-based target addresses the carbon intensity of a company’s physical power use, and requires companies to show that their grid consumption is falling and/or that their physical grid use is getting cleaner; in other words, that their market-based solutions are actually making the grid cleaner.

The market-based (or zero-carbon electricity) target tracks a company’s use of low-carbon power generation contracts and Energy Attribute Certificates. It requires geographical matching of these certificates with electricity consumption based on deliverability regions (grid regions); annual matching is allowed, though hourly matching is encouraged. Category A companies with large electricity loads must report the percentage of their Scope 2 electricity consumption matched with low-carbon attributes on an hourly basis, and there’s an optional recognition framework for companies that meet hourly matching thresholds.

How do Scope 3 targets work under Net Zero Standard V2?

Scope 3 targets share the same 2050-or-sooner net-zero goal, but companies set near-term targets only for material emissions sources in their value chain and areas where they have real influence. Long-term Scope 3 targets are generally not required.

Limited, justified exclusions are allowed for near-term targets, including categories that individually account for less than 5% of total Scope 3 emissions, and activities where a company lacks practical influence, like leased assets it doesn’t operationally control, or the processing of sold products. Optional exclusions are also available in specific categories.

Companies can choose from three approaches to near-term Scope 3 targets:

  1. An overarching emissions reduction target, which follows a linear contraction of emissions from the base year to residual emissions of 10% or less by 2050 or sooner;
  2. An overarching supplier/customer alignment target, benchmarked against a growing share of tier 1 suppliers and customers reaching net-zero by 2050 or sooner; or
  3. A category- or activity-specific target, tailored for companies with concentrated emissions in particular Scope 3 categories or high-emitting activities.

What is “ongoing emissions mitigation” under the new SBTi standard?

This is one of the most significant additions in Net Zero Standard V2. Accelerated climate contributions are needed to help the world achieve climate objectives, limit temperature overshoot, mitigate transition risks, and support the scale-up of climate solutions, and V2 formally recognizes that. Ongoing emissions mitigation runs as a parallel track to companies also reducing their own emissions.

The framework is initially voluntary, with recognition available at three contribution levels to encourage early action.

  1. Engaged companies address more than 1% of total Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions.
  2. Advanced companies address more than 10% of total Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, including 100% of Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
  3. Leadership companies address 100% of total Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions with a contribution budget of $80/tCO2e.

Carbon credits used for this purpose have to meet certain quality standards. They must be ex-post (issued after the mitigation has actually occurred), independently third-party-assured, emissions reductions or removals, measured in tCO2e, that occur within five years prior to the reporting year. They must be sourced from outside the company’s own value chain. Further minimum criteria will be set to align with high-integrity frameworks, with additional details on the recognition program expected in the second half of 2026.

Starting in 2035, carbon removals become mandatory for Category A companies. From that point, the carbon removal coverage requirement rises linearly from 1% of Scope 1–3 emissions to 100% by a company’s net-zero year. Within that, 10% of long-lived GHG emissions must specifically be covered by durable removals, also rising linearly to 100% by the net-zero year.

How must companies neutralize residual emissions?

At a company’s net-zero target year and thereafter, it must reduce its Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions to zero or to residual levels, and neutralize all residual emissions using eligible carbon removals. Those removals have to meet two conditions: they must occur within the same reporting period as the residual emissions they’re neutralizing, and long-lived GHGs must be neutralized with long-lived removals, matching the durability of the removal to the atmospheric lifetime of the emission being addressed.

What is the SBTi implementation hierarchy?

Net Zero Standard V2 also lays out how companies should prioritize their actions for credible target delivery, in three tiers.

  1. Direct actions, at the activity level, are actions that reduce emissions at the source within a company’s own operations and value chain; things like efficiency improvements, fuel switching, and engaging suppliers and customers to reduce their emissions.
  2. Actions within shared systems, or activity pools that reduce the emissions of shared systems like electricity or gas grids. This includes market instruments that convey low-carbon attributes, such as PPAs, RECs, and GOs, all of which must meet minimum integrity criteria that SBTi will elaborate on in future guidance.
  3. Sector-level actions relate to the same type of activity occurring in a relevant geography or system, in a way that meaningfully reduces the emissions a company is responsible for.

How Terrapass helps businesses meet the new SBTi standard

As the rules around carbon credits become more rigorous, the quality of the credits behind them matters more than ever. Terrapass has expanded our global network of carbon projects: more project types, locations, prices, ICVCM CCPs, and UN SDGs, spanning super-pollutant destruction, nature-based solutions, and durable removals. We offer Green-e® Climate Certification and we only source from third-party-verified projects on ICVCM-Eligible registries.

We also help clients with impact beyond carbon: EACs, RECs, and GOs including Green-e® Certified credits that support leading renewable energy projects; water credits that support water restoration projects; and custom environmental product needs like RNG and SAF. Wherever your organization is on its sustainability journey, we help clients around the world address climate risk, advance their environmental and social goals, and get the most out of their sustainability budgets.

FAQ: SBTi Net-Zero Standard revision

What is the SBTi Net-Zero Standard?

It’s the framework the Science Based Targets initiative publishes for companies that want validated, credible net-zero targets tied to limiting global warming.

What is changing in the SBTi Net Zero Standard V2 revision?

The biggest changes are more flexibility (five-year cycles and a “best efforts” standard), a new Asset Transition Method for companies whose emissions don’t follow a straight-line path, and formal recognition of voluntary carbon credits for mitigating ongoing emissions.

When do companies need to switch to the new SBTi standard?

If your company already has 2030 targets, you keep using V1 for your current cycle and move to V2 in 2028. If you don’t have targets yet, you can start using V2 as of February 1, 2027.

Can companies use carbon credits to meet SBTi targets?

They can. Under V2, high-integrity carbon reduction and removal credits count toward mitigating ongoing emissions from 2027 through 2034. Starting in 2035, only removal credits count, and they need to be durability-matched to the emissions they offset.

What’s the difference between Category A and Category B companies under SBTi?

Category A is large companies everywhere plus medium-sized companies in high-income countries, based on thresholds like revenue, headcount, or emissions. Category B is small companies everywhere and medium-sized companies in lower-income countries.

What happens if a company misses its SBTi target?

Under the old standard, falling behind could cost a company its SBTi status. Under V2’s “best efforts” approach, a company can hold onto its status as long as it’s used every lever within its control, with minimum progress rules coming in the SBTi Assurance Manual.

Sources: This post is based on Terrapass’s internal analysis of the SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0. Facts and figures were checked against SBTi’s official V2.0 announcement, SBTi’s Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0 — Chapter 6: Ongoing Emissions Responsibility, Trellis’s coverage of the standard, Trellis’s reporting on Ongoing Emissions Recognition costs, Sylvera’s analysis of what comes next, Anthesis Group’s Fortune 500 net-zero commitments research, and Climate Impact Partners’ seventh annual FG500 analysis, as reported by CarbonUnits.com.

The post SBTi Net-Zero Standard V2: What the Revision Means for Every Business appeared first on Terrapass.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

How to improve Scope 3 data accuracy for CSRD

Published

on

For most businesses, the emissions that matter most sit outside their own walls. Scope 3 emissions, everything generated across your value chain, from the suppliers who make your inputs to the customers who use your products, typically make up the majority of a company’s total carbon footprint. Under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), those value-chain emissions now have to be measured and disclosed with a rigour that spend-based estimates alone struggle to satisfy. This guide sets out how to improve Scope 3 data accuracy for CSRD: the calculation methods open to you, how to move from estimates to verified supplier data, and how to govern that data so it holds up to audit.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

How community stewardship makes carbon credits durable

Published

on

A carbon credit is a commitment that extends well into the future. The tonne of CO₂ compensated for today from a nature-based carbon project must remain out of the atmosphere for good, which means the forest behind the credit has to remain standing long after the transaction is complete. For any buyer, this raises a defining question: What ensures that the forest endures?

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com