Connect with us

Published

on

As global temperatures persist in rising to concerning new highs, national governments, multinational corporations, small businesses, and individuals are all urgently exploring ways to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change risks. One increasingly popular and impactful method that is gaining significant traction is the use of carbon credits to provide powerful financial incentives for businesses and consumers to cut emissions and support the rapid development of renewable energy sources.

This informative post is the 4th installment in our acclaimed new series based on our organization’s highly regarded 2023 Climate Change and Carbon Markets Annual Report.

The previous posts in this illuminating series so far have been:

In this post, we will take a closer look at various energy sources and strategies, emphasizing the importance of diverse solutions like fuel switching, renewables, nuclear energy, and carbon capture to combat climate change and achieve a sustainable energy future..

The Wedge Theory – A Portfolio Approach to Emissions Reductions

Climate experts propose a “wedge theory” framework to conceptualize the portfolio of solutions needed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and stabilize the climate. This approach requires deploying diverse technologies and strategies, each providing a “wedge” of avoided emissions adding up to the total reductions needed. The original theory called for 7 wedges, but emissions have continued rising, so 9 are now required. Wedges include renewables, nuclear energy, fuel switching, energy efficiency, forests and soils, and carbon capture and storage.

Understanding Fuel Switching

Fuel switching entails replacing carbon-intensive fuels like coal and oil with less carbon-intensive ones like natural gas. For example, switching from coal to gas can decrease power plant emissions by 60% per kilowatt-hour.

  • Coal: 25 metric tons carbon per terajoule
  • Oil: 20 metric tons carbon per terajoule
  • Natural Gas: 14 metric tons carbon per terajoule

So switching to gas provides a “bridge” to zero-carbon energy systems. The shale gas boom enabled by hydraulic fracturing accelerated this trend in the United States. However, the environmental impacts of techniques like fracking cannot be disregarded.

Nuclear Energy: A Renewable Source?

Nuclear energy, often hailed as a clean energy source, is derived from the process of splitting uranium atoms through fission. This fission process heats water to produce steam, which in turn spins turbines, ultimately generating electricity. The entire procedure emits no greenhouse gases, making it an attractive option in the fight against climate change. However, the question of whether nuclear energy can be classified as “renewable” remains a topic of contention among experts and environmentalists. While it offers a more sustainable alternative to fossil fuels, concerns about radioactive waste, the finite nature of uranium resources, and potential safety risks make its categorization as a renewable energy source debatable.

Harnessing Inexhaustible Sources: The Role of Renewables

Renewable energy derived from inexhaustible natural sources like sunlight, wind, and water offers immense potential with little to no GHG emissions. Growing renewables is crucial for climate change mitigation.

Solar Energy: Ever Improving Technologies

Solar energy, a cornerstone of renewable power sources, harnesses the abundant energy radiated by the sun. This is achieved primarily through two technologies: photovoltaics (PV) and concentrated solar plants. Photovoltaic cells, commonly known as solar panels, are designed to directly convert sunlight into electricity. They achieve this transformation using specially crafted semiconductor materials that capture photons and initiate an electric current. One of the standout features of solar PV systems is their adaptability. They can be installed on a grand scale for utility purposes, powering entire communities or even cities. Alternatively, they can be set up in smaller, distributed configurations, such as on rooftops of individual homes, allowing homeowners to generate their own electricity and even feed excess power back into the grid. As technology continues to advance, the efficiency and applications of solar energy are bound to expand, making it an even more integral part of our energy landscape.

Geothermal Energy: Tapping into Earth’s Heat

Geothermal energy is a remarkable form of power that taps into the Earth’s innate thermal energy stored beneath its crust. This energy originates from the radioactive decay of materials deep within the planet and the original heat from Earth’s formation. In regions with pronounced subsurface temperatures, often marked by volcanic or tectonic activity, the potential for generating geothermal electricity is especially high. The typical process involves accessing hot water reservoirs located below the surface. This water, when pumped up through specialized wells, transforms into steam due to the pressure difference. This steam then propels turbine generators, converting the Earth’s heat into usable electricity. As a sustainable and environmentally friendly energy source, geothermal power offers a consistent and reliable alternative to more conventional power generation methods.

Hydro and Wind: Leveraging Flowing Resources

Hydropower converts the kinetic energy of flowing water into electricity using turbine generators. Dams with reservoirs
offer reliable large-scale hydro electricity, while run-of-river systems have lower impact.

Wind power harnesses the kinetic energy of wind, again turning turbines to produce power. Onshore and offshore wind farms are rapidly expanding as costs plummet.

But hydropower and wind face challenges in location constraints, transmission needs, and intermittency. Still, they are vital and growing pieces of the renewables puzzle.

Bioenergy: Leveraging Natural Carbon Sinks

Bioenergy stands out as a unique form of renewable energy because it taps into the chemical energy naturally stored within organic materials. This energy is derived from both living organisms, like plants and animals, and those that have recently died. A diverse range of sources, including forest biomass, residues from agricultural activities and livestock, as well as various waste streams, can be converted into renewable electricity, fuels for transportation, and heat for homes and industries.

However, it’s essential to approach bioenergy with a discerning eye. While it holds great potential, not every form of bioenergy is environmentally beneficial. For instance, clearing vast expanses of forests to cultivate energy crops can lead to significant carbon emissions and disrupt delicate ecosystems. This not only negates the carbon benefits but also poses threats to biodiversity. Looking at the positive aspects, bioenergy can be obtained from waste biomass or cultivated on lands that are not suitable for other agricultural purposes. This not only provides a sustainable solution, but also has a positive impact on the climate. Such practices ensure that greenhouse gas emissions are minimized, making bioenergy a viable and eco-conscious energy alternative.

Waste-to-Energy: Capturing Landfill Gas

Landfill gas (LFG) projects prevent methane emissions from landfills by capturing methane for flaring or energy use. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, so converting it to CO2 via combustion provides immediate climate benefits. LFG projects also reduce local air pollution.
Captured LFG can be used onsite for electricity, heat, or even vehicle fuel. These projects provide environmental and socio-economic benefits to communities near landfills.

Sequestering Carbon: Storing Away Emissions

Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) aims to balance continued fossil fuel use with equivalent carbon storage elsewhere. CCUS removes CO2 from large point sources like power plants or directly extracts CO2 from ambient air. The carbon is then stored via injection into geologic formations, old oil and gas reservoirs, or chemical conversion into stable solids.
While technologically feasible, CCUS still faces challenges with scaling up infrastructure, ensuring permanent storage, and lowering costs. More investment is needed to develop CCUS into a viable wedge.

The All-Out Effort Needed

Bending the global emissions curve downwards requires urgent economy-wide action across all sectors. Intelligently leveraging fuel switching, nuclear energy, renewables, bioenergy, and eventually carbon storage provides paths to a carbon-neutral future. But the clock is ticking. Successfully activating these climate wedges demands policies, partnerships, and funding on a massive scale. Our future depends on rising to this great challenge.

To learn more about the role fuel switching plays in fighting climate change contact us for the full report.

——

Photo by Jason Blackeye on Unsplash

Carbon Footprint

The Strategic Case for Nature-Based Carbon Investments

Published

on

Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.

1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project

Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.

This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.

CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.

2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain

The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?

Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.

Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.

The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.

3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply

WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.

The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.

The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.

The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.

4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward

Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?

Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.

SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.

For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.

Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.

5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions

Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.

Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.

Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.

A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.

6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision

Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.

Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.

Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.

This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.

Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC

Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.

Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.

Sources

  1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
  2. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
  3. Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
  4. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

How to buy plastic credits, and what to check before you do

Published

on

A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

EU carbon credit claims after 27 September 2026

Published

on

EU carbon credit claims changed on 27 September 2026, the day the Directive (EU) 2024/825 began to apply across the European Union. The change is narrow. It changes how a company can talk about the credits it buys. A product can no longer be called neutral on the strength of compensation alone; however, every specific, evidenced statement about what a company measured, reduced, and funded stays fully available.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com