Cryptocurrency has revolutionized the financial world, offering decentralized, secure, and borderless transactions. However, its rise has come with a significant downside—high energy consumption. The world’s most popular cryptocurrency, Bitcoin relies on energy-intensive mining processes to secure its network, emitting lots of carbon dioxide. Meanwhile, other blockchain applications also contribute to this growing energy demand.
As the crypto industry expands, so do concerns about its environmental impact. This article explores how cryptocurrency and blockchain technology affect global energy consumption and carbon emissions. It explores how Green AI enables sustainable blockchain solutions. It also explains how blockchain can help carbon markets address some of its most pressing issues.
But first, let’s unveil how energy-intensive cryptocurrency mining is and whether Bitcoin can be truly green.
Can Bitcoin Be Truly Green? The Carbon Footprint of Cryptocurrency Mining
High energy consumption in cryptocurrency mining directly translates to significant carbon emissions, especially when powered by fossil fuels.
Bitcoin mining is notorious for its immense energy consumption. Here are the facts about crypto mining’s environmental impact:
According to recent data, the Bitcoin network consumes around 127 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity annually—more than entire countries like Argentina and the Netherlands. This energy usage stems from the Proof-of-Work (PoW) mechanism, where miners compete to solve complex mathematical puzzles, requiring powerful hardware and vast amounts of electricity.
To put this into perspective, Bitcoin mining accounts for 0.55% of global electricity consumption, equivalent to the energy use of some large industrial sectors. As a result, the environmental cost of mining continues to spark debate, urging the industry to explore more sustainable practices.
Higher energy use translates into more carbon emissions…
- On average, a single Bitcoin transaction is responsible for emitting 300 to 400 kilograms of CO₂, equivalent to the carbon footprint of over 800,000 Visa transactions or 50,000 hours of YouTube streaming.
Globally, Bitcoin mining emits an estimated 69 million metric tons of CO₂ annually, comparable to the emissions of countries like Greece.
Moreover, cryptocurrency transactions, particularly those on the Bitcoin network, consume far more energy than traditional payment systems. As mentioned above, Bitcoin transactions use a lot more power than Visa processes.
- A single Bitcoin transaction = 100,000 Visa transactions.
PayPal, another widely used platform, also operates with significantly lower energy consumption, processing thousands of transactions with minimal electricity use. This stark difference underscores the inefficiency of current cryptosystems compared to traditional financial networks.
The substantial environmental cost underscores the urgent need for cleaner energy sources and innovative solutions to reduce the crypto industry’s carbon footprint.
The Growing Role of Renewable Energy in Bitcoin Mining
Recent data suggests that over 50% of Bitcoin’s mining network now uses renewable energy sources such as hydroelectric, wind, and solar power. For instance, regions like Iceland and Quebec, known for abundant renewable energy, have become hotspots for mining operations.
This transition is driven by economic and environmental incentives. Renewable energy is often cheaper than fossil fuels, reducing operational costs for miners. Furthermore, as governments introduce stricter regulations on carbon emissions, miners are motivated to adopt greener practices to avoid penalties and maintain their social license to operate.
Proof-of-Stake and Other Energy-Efficient Consensus Mechanisms
Bitcoin operates on a Proof-of-Work consensus mechanism, which is energy-intensive by design. Miners compete to solve complex mathematical problems, consuming significant electricity in the process.
In contrast, Proof-of-Stake (PoS) systems, like Ethereum’s, the second-largest blockchain, recent transition, eliminate the need for energy-hungry computations.
Instead of miners, validators are chosen based on the number of tokens they hold and are willing to “stake.” This drastically reduces energy consumption—Ethereum’s shift to PoS has cut its energy use by 99.95%, setting a benchmark for other cryptocurrencies.
Before its transition to Proof-of-Stake in 2022, Ethereum consumed around 78 TWh of electricity annually, comparable to Chile’s total energy use. Even smaller blockchains, such as Litecoin and Dogecoin, utilize PoW, albeit with lower energy requirements.
On the other hand, many altcoins, including Cardano and Solana, have adopted PoS or other less energy-intensive models. These networks drastically reduce energy consumption, making them more sustainable.
However, the cumulative impact of various blockchains still adds to the global energy demand, highlighting the need for widespread adoption of greener technologies.
Highlighting Innovative Approaches: KlimaDAO’s Tokenized Carbon Credits
Apart from changing consensus mechanisms, innovative solutions like KlimaDAO offer a new way to address crypto’s carbon footprint.
KlimaDAO allows users, including Bitcoin miners, to purchase tokenized carbon credits, effectively offsetting their emissions. These credits represent verified reductions in greenhouse gases and are retired after purchase to ensure accountability.
- One carbon credit equals one metric ton of CO₂ reduced or removed from the atmosphere.
Such initiatives align with broader climate goals, enabling the crypto industry to contribute positively to carbon neutrality. Another emerging trend that could help the industry tackle its environmental impact is Green AI (Artificial Intelligence).
Green AI: Powering Sustainable Blockchain Solutions
The concept of “Green AI” focuses on leveraging artificial intelligence to enhance sustainability and reduce environmental impact, aligning technology with climate action goals. AI can be used to optimize energy usage across various industries, minimizing emissions and maximizing efficiency.
For instance, AI-powered solutions can streamline energy grids, predict resource consumption, and identify areas for improved sustainability. It also supports the development of AI models and algorithms that optimize energy consumption in data centers, making them more energy-efficient.
Green AI includes using AI tools to track carbon emissions, forecast energy usage, and help industries transition toward renewable energy. For example, AI can optimize electricity demand response, helping utilities manage energy more efficiently while reducing carbon footprints.
By integrating AI with sustainability strategies, organizations can achieve measurable reductions in energy consumption, significantly lowering the carbon footprint of industries like manufacturing, transportation, and data management.
AI is also revolutionizing how blockchain networks manage energy. By analyzing real-time data, AI algorithms can predict network congestion, optimize transaction processing, and ensure efficient use of computing resources.
This dynamic allocation of energy minimizes waste and prevents overuse during low-demand periods. For example, predictive models powered by AI can anticipate peak activity times, enabling miners to adjust operations and reduce unnecessary energy expenditure.
AI-Driven Tools to Track and Reduce Crypto Carbon Emissions
AI also plays a critical role in monitoring and mitigating the carbon emissions of blockchain activities. Platforms equipped with AI can measure the carbon output of each transaction, offering insights into the environmental impact of specific operations. These tools provide actionable recommendations for reducing emissions, such as shifting workloads to energy-efficient times or integrating renewable energy sources.
For instance, projects like CryptoCarbonRank leverage AI to provide transparency on carbon emissions across various blockchain networks, empowering users and developers to make greener choices.
Bridging Blockchain and AI for Improved Transparency
Combining blockchain’s transparency with AI’s analytical capabilities has transformed the carbon credit market. Blockchain ensures the integrity of carbon credits by recording transactions in a tamper-proof ledger, while AI automates the verification process. This synergy prevents issues like double counting and fraud, which have historically plagued carbon markets.
AI-driven platforms also facilitate the issuance and trading of tokenized carbon credits. These innovations streamline the offset process, making it accessible to a broader audience while ensuring credibility and trust in global carbon offset initiatives.
Now, let’s consider specifically Bitcoin mining and how current efforts and innovations are helping the network become more sustainable.
The Evolution of Bitcoin Mining: Toward Sustainability
Bitcoin mining has historically depended on fossil fuels, contributing to significant carbon emissions. However, the industry is evolving as miners increasingly adopt renewable energy sources.
For example, China’s 2021 crackdown on crypto mining led many operations to relocate to countries with abundant renewable resources, such as the U.S. and Canada. In Texas, some mining companies use excess wind and solar power, stabilizing the state’s energy grid while reducing reliance on coal and natural gas.
As of 2024, nearly 40% of Bitcoin mining is powered by renewable energy sources, a significant improvement from previous years.
The shift toward renewables not only lowers carbon emissions but also reduces operational costs. Renewable energy, especially in regions with surplus capacity, is often cheaper than fossil fuels, creating a win-win scenario for miners and the environment.
From Proof-of-Work to Proof-of-Stake: Emerging Energy-Efficient Alternatives
Bitcoin’s PoW mechanism is the main culprit behind its high energy use and carbon pollution. By design, PoW requires miners to solve computational puzzles, consuming vast amounts of electricity. This has led to Bitcoin’s annual energy consumption surpassing that of some mid-sized countries.
Emerging alternatives like Proof-of-Stake are changing the game. PoS eliminates the need for energy-intensive computations, relying instead on validators who are selected based on their stake in the network. Ethereum’s switch to PoS has set a precedent, showcasing that major blockchains can significantly reduce energy consumption without compromising security or decentralization.
Cardano and Solana are among the leading PoS blockchains prioritizing energy efficiency. Cardano consumes only about 6 gigawatt-hours (GWh) annually, a fraction of Bitcoin’s energy use. Solana, known for its high-speed transactions, operates on a hybrid model with minimal energy requirements.
These networks demonstrate that advanced blockchain functionalities, such as smart contracts and decentralized applications (dApps), can be achieved without compromising environmental goals. Their energy efficiency also aligns with growing investor demand for greener technologies.
Crypto Projects for Nature-Based Carbon Solutions
Innovative projects like SavePlanetEarth (SPE) are tackling Bitcoin’s environmental challenges through nature-based solutions. SPE leverages blockchain technology to support reforestation and afforestation initiatives.
By tokenizing carbon credits linked to these projects, SPE provides a transparent and efficient way to offset emissions.
These initiatives not only mitigate the carbon footprint of Bitcoin mining but also contribute to broader environmental goals, such as biodiversity conservation and ecosystem restoration. Such projects demonstrate how blockchain and crypto can play a proactive role in addressing climate change.
Revolutionizing Carbon Markets with Blockchain
Talking about climate, carbon markets offer significant financial instruments that can help fund various emissions reduction initiatives.
However, traditional carbon credit systems often face challenges such as fraud and lack of transparency. Blockchain technology addresses these issues by providing a decentralized and immutable ledger for tracking and verifying carbon credits. Each credit is tokenized, representing a verified reduction or removal of greenhouse gas emissions.
By using blockchain, every transaction is transparent and traceable, ensuring the authenticity of carbon credits. This enhances accountability, especially for organizations looking to meet sustainability targets.
The Toucan Protocol is a prime example of how blockchain enhances trust in carbon markets. The platform tokenizes carbon credits, making them accessible to a broader audience. Each credit is verified and traceable, ensuring its integrity.
Toucan also allows users to bundle smaller carbon offsets into larger, more marketable assets. This scalability supports global efforts to reduce emissions and makes it easier for companies and individuals to participate in offsetting programs. By combining blockchain’s transparency with innovative tokenization, Toucan is driving progress in carbon markets.
Major carbon standards like Verra and Gold Standard are exploring ways to integrate decentralized systems to improve the verification process.
Blockchain in Renewable Energy Grids
Blockchain is also transforming renewable energy grids by enabling peer-to-peer energy trading. In these systems, households, and businesses with solar panels can sell excess energy directly to others. Blockchain ensures secure and transparent transactions without the need for intermediaries.
Projects such as Power Ledger in Australia and LO3 Energy in the U.S. are leveraging blockchain to create localized energy markets. These initiatives promote renewable energy adoption while increasing grid efficiency and resilience.
The Issues of Double Counting, Scalability, and Trust
One of the most significant challenges in carbon offset markets has been double counting, where the same carbon credit is sold multiple times or claimed by different entities. Blockchain technology provides an effective solution by offering a transparent and tamper-proof record of each carbon credit transaction.
With blockchain, each carbon credit is tokenized, and its transaction history is recorded on a decentralized ledger. This ensures that once a credit is sold or retired, it cannot be reused or misrepresented, drastically reducing the risk of double counting.
Platforms like CarbonX are already implementing blockchain to safeguard the integrity of carbon offset programs. It is a private blockchain ledger designed to capture IoT-based greenhouse gas data for accurate reporting, management, and conversion into carbon commodities.
As Emission Trading Systems (ETS) and Carbon Tax programs continue to roll out globally, blockchain technology is poised to play a crucial role in ensuring compliance with environmental regulations. It also offers new opportunities for carbon asset trading, enhancing transparency and efficiency in the carbon market.
Not only that. Tokenization is a game-changer for carbon credits, making them easier to trade and track across borders.
By converting carbon credits into tokens, blockchain allows for fractional ownership, lower transaction costs, and greater liquidity in carbon markets. This scalability is crucial in meeting the global demand for offsets as businesses and governments strive to achieve their net-zero goals.
As mentioned earlier, the transparency of blockchain ensures that tokenized carbon credits are traceable, improving trust among buyers and sellers.
Blockchain’s Potential for Global Carbon Market Integration
Blockchain has the potential to integrate regional carbon markets into a unified global system, enabling seamless trading of carbon credits across borders. Using blockchain to track credits from multiple countries and regions ensures that the credits are authentic and can be used toward global emissions reduction goals.
This integration not only supports international climate agreements but also fosters collaboration between countries, corporations, and environmental organizations. As such, blockchain could ultimately drive the global carbon market toward greater transparency, efficiency, and scalability. It can then provide a unified approach to tackling climate change.
Final Thoughts
Cryptocurrency and blockchain technology have transformed global finance and data systems, but their environmental impact cannot be ignored. Bitcoin and other crypto networks consume vast amounts of energy, contributing to significant carbon emissions. However, the industry is actively working toward sustainability, with renewable-powered mining, energy-efficient blockchains, and carbon offset initiatives leading the way.
As crypto adoption grows, the balance between innovation and environmental responsibility will be crucial. By embracing greener technologies, the industry can pave the way for a more sustainable digital future.
- FURTHER READING: Carbon Crypto Guide 2024: KlimaDAO, Carbon NFTs, and Carbon Tokens
The post The Energy Debate: How Bitcoin Mining, Blockchain, and Cryptocurrency Shape Our Carbon Future appeared first on Carbon Credits.
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 |
|
| Businesses who fall behind targets lose status |
|
| Ignores voluntary carbon projects |
|
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.
- Absolute emissions reduction follows a straight-line emissions trajectory from the target base year to the net-zero year.
- Emissions intensity reduction lets companies follow sector-specific pathways designed to reflect the reduction opportunities available in sectors like steel, cement, or chemicals.
- 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:
- Reducing electricity consumption,
- Reducing grid consumption by installing onsite or direct-line offsite clean energy generation, and
- 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:
- 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;
- 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
- 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.
- Engaged companies address more than 1% of total Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions.
- Advanced companies address more than 10% of total Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, including 100% of Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
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?
-
Climate Change12 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases12 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测