The Carbon Debate: what reforms are necessary for voluntary carbon markets?

Please see here for the video recording of the webinar.

Recently, corporate use of voluntary carbon markets and verified emissions credits has come under intense scrutiny and debate. On one side, reporting in the Guardian and elsewhere has claimed that most certified credits do not represent genuine carbon reductions. On the other side, certifying bodies and others supporting the use of voluntary carbon markets and projects tackling deforestation have stoutly defended verified emissions reduction credits and the science behind the certification.

Certainly, the voluntary carbon markets are imperfect; challenges include establishing baselines and accounting methodology. Nevertheless, carbon projects, including REDD+ projects, are perhaps the best method we currently have of getting finance to indigenous communities so that they can value their forests with the trees standing.

In this special webinar, we had a frank and transparent debate about the challenges and solutions. We asked experts how we can move forward to ensure that finance from voluntary carbon markets reaches projects that prevent deforestation and contribute to tackling climate change. We discussed:

• The problems that the recent criticisms have highlighted, and the counter arguments
• What players in the carbon markets can do to ensure the science and other methodologies are as good as they can be
• What companies tackling their Scope III emissions need to know when it comes to carbon credits
• The process of continual reform necessary to ensure that funds from voluntary carbon markets go to credible and worthy projects

The panel:

• David Antonioli, CEO, Verra
• Bea Natzler, team leader, people and business, Climate Change Committee
• Samuel Gill, co-founder and president, Sylvera

This webinar was part of our “big debate” series and was moderated by Ian Welsh, publishing director at Innovation Forum.

Listen to the audio recording of the latest “big debate” webinar, The future of meat debate: what are the best options for human and planetary health?