{"id":48070,"date":"2023-02-20T15:10:14","date_gmt":"2023-02-20T15:10:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.climatechangenews.com\/?p=48070"},"modified":"2023-02-20T15:12:38","modified_gmt":"2023-02-20T15:12:38","slug":"corporations-push-insetting-as-new-offsetting-but-report-claims-it-is-even-worse","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.climatechangenews.com\/2023\/02\/20\/corporations-push-insetting-as-new-offsetting-but-report-claims-it-is-even-worse\/","title":{"rendered":"Corporations push “insetting” as new offsetting but report claims it is even worse"},"content":{"rendered":"

For Nestl\u00e9, planting millions of trees in and around plantations supplying its coffee is an ideal “net zero” fix. <\/strong><\/p>\n

This – the Swiss giant says – not only captures carbon from the atmosphere, generating credits to be claimed against its climate targets.<\/p>\n

But it also protects crops, reduces water reliance and supports workers on the very farms the company sources materials from.<\/p>\n

This practice is called insetting, a term creeping into the “net zero” plans of a rising number of corporations.<\/p>\n

Instead of buying carbon credits from unrelated third parties – as they would in traditional offsetting schemes – through insetting, companies invest in carbon reduction or removal projects on their own land or the land of their suppliers.<\/p>\n

Critical report<\/h3>\n

Its emergence comes as more doubts<\/a> are being cast over the reliability of carbon offsets. A new critical report<\/a> says this is no coincidence.<\/p>\n

The New Climate Institute (NCI), a German campaign group, says insetting is simply offsetting in disguise and is plagued by the same integrity issues.<\/p>\n

Data exclusive:<\/strong> The \u2018junk\u2019 carbon offsets revived by the Glasgow Pact<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The report also raises concern over companies “successfully” lobbying standards-setters to rubber-stamp the inclusion of insetting claims within their net zero pledges.<\/p>\n

In particular, the report points the finger at the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTI), a corporate climate target watchdog supported by NGOs like the World Wildlife Fund and World Resources Institute. The report accuses it of \u201clegitimizing\u201d insetting.<\/p>\n

What is insetting?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

There is no single and universally-accepted definition of insetting, but the term generally refers to a company offsetting emissions through carbon reduction or removal projects along its own supply chain. Insetting is most commonly used by corporations with a large land footprint and involves protecting nature.<\/p>\n

The International Platform for Insetting (IPI) – a business-led group – says insetting brings a more \u201cholistic\u201d approach. \u201cInsetting is an important mechanism for companies not only to achieve their net zero commitments,\u201d Michael Guindon, IPI\u2019s executive director, told Climate Home. \u201cBut it also helps companies reach other goals, in improving biodiversity, ecosystems and livelihoods for communities they work with.\u201d<\/p>\n

But the NCI claims insetting is just a rebranding operation for \u201clow-standard\u201d offsetting. \u201cThe impression is that offsetting has gained a bad reputation, so companies are moving to a different term to avoid criticism, rather than abandoning it altogether,\u201d Silke Mooldijk, co-author of the NCI report, told Climate Home News, \u201cThis distracts from the need for real emission reductions\u201d.<\/p>\n

The NCI scrutinised the climate pledges of 24 major multinational corporations. It found that the practice of so-called insetting is \u201cgaining momentum and undermining more companies\u2019 climate strategies\u201d.<\/p>\n

Offsets – also referred to as carbon credits – have come under increasing criticism over the last few years with academics, journalists and NGOs raising questions over the real contributions to emission reduction. In December 2022 a Guardian investigation<\/a>\u00a0 claimed up to 90% of forest-based carbon credits approved by a leading certifier are worthless – which the certifier Verra denies<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Methodologies questioned<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The NCI report says the insetting claims it analysed are also plagued by a lack of robust methodologies and the required verification steps.<\/p>\n

Insetting within a company\u2019s supply chain may take the form of emissions reduction projects or carbon dioxide removals.<\/p>\n

The NCI calls both \u201chighly contentious\u201d. It claims that describing emissions reduction projects as insetting is a \u201cfalse concept\u201d, because this is a measure of reducing its own emissions and should not be used to neutralise some of the companies\u2019 other emission sources. The risk is that reductions may be counted twice.<\/p>\n

Greenwash alert<\/strong> as Cop27 draft allows double claiming of carbon credits<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Carbon dioxide removals include carbon storage in soil or wood. These projects – the NCI says – may be compromised by the same integrity issues as any other offsetting project: the difficulty in demonstrating the emission reductions are additional to what would have happened anyway and that they are permanent.<\/p>\n

\"Tree

Tree planting activity in Thailand. Photo: Chanklang \u00a0Kanthong \/ Greenpeace<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n

Unlike offsets, insetting projects do not currently require verification against globally agreed standards.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis could offer a potential avenue for companies to bypass those standards,\u201d Justin Baker, a forest economist at North Carolina State University, told Climate Home News. \u201cThat raises concerns regarding the credibility or potential climate benefit of the insetting action.\u201d<\/p>\n

Nestl\u00e9 and Pepsi<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Nestl\u00e9 and PepsiCo are among the companies relying on insetting for emissions reductions or removals.<\/p>\n

Nestl\u00e9 plans to halve its emissions by 2030 and to reach net zero by 2050. The company says<\/a> it does not use offsetting outside its value chain to deliver emissions removals – even though some of its brands do buy offsets<\/p>\n

Its main focus<\/a>, it says, is instead on sucking in carbon through restoring forests, wetlands and peatlands on its suppliers’ land.<\/p>\n

Climate Home News asked Nestl\u00e9 to provide detailed information about the company\u2019s projects but did not receive a response.<\/p>\n

Nestl\u00e9 \u2019s publicly available<\/a> information on insetting overwhelmingly refers to tree-planting initiatives.<\/p>\n

\"Nespresso

A chart from a Nespresso report shows the role of removals and insetting in the company’s net zero strategy. Credit: Nespresso’s Positive Cup report<\/a>)<\/p><\/div>\n

Critics like the NCI say tree planting does not always have permanent benefits. If, for example, trees were cut or went up in flames, the carbon sequestered would be immediately released back into the atmosphere.<\/p>\n

A Nestl\u00e9 spokesperson said that \u201cwhen it comes to the food and agriculture sector, the NCI approach to decarbonization simply does not work\u201d. \u201cFood and agricultural companies like ours can and must play a role in adopting nature-based solutions to achieve their climate targets,\u201d it added.<\/p>\n

PepsiCo aims to reduce emissions by 40% by 2030 and to reach net zero ten years later. In its strategy<\/a>, the company says it wants to deploy \u201ccarbon insetting at scale\u201d without elaborating on specific practices and targets.<\/p>\n

In 2021 PepsiCo announced<\/a> a partnership with the Soil and Water Outcomes Fund to subsidize regenerative agricultural practices on 20,000 acres of land in Illinois, a supply area for the company. They claimed this project would \u201cgenerate verifiable carbon reductions\u201d that could be used to inset corporate emissions.<\/p>\n

“Lobbying to legitimise insetting”<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The NCI claims Nestl\u00e9 and PepsiCo are \u201camong the companies successfully lobbying to legitimise the contentious practice of what they label as insetting\u201d.<\/p>\n

Nestl\u00e9 and PepsiCo are among over a dozen large corporations who provided input into SBTI\u2019s guidance<\/a> for the forestry, land and agriculture (Flag) sector, alongside experts from several NGOs.<\/p>\n

The guidance was supported by the charitable foundation of Intel co-founder Gordon Moore and “additional support was provided” by companies in the Flag sector like furniture shop Ikea and food companies Cargill, Mars and General Mills.<\/p>\n

The SBTI is the most prominent standard-setter for corporate climate targets globally. It says its targets are \u201cgrounded in an objective scientific evaluation\u201d and represent a more robust approach for companies to manage their emissions.<\/p>\n

\n