A recent London summit for the carbon offsets market focused on technical discussions but also aimed to challenge the Science Based Targets initiative, seen by some as a barrier to market growth in the fight against climate change.
The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) is facing internal turmoil as staff members call for the CEO's ouster and the reversal of a decision to allow companies to use carbon credits to offset greenhouse gas emissions from their value chain. This move, which has received mixed responses from stakeholders and NGOs, has sparked criticism over its potential to let companies off the hook for reducing emissions. The decision, which was made without consulting the technical advisory group, has led to resignations and demands for board members' resignation. Proponents argue that allowing offsets would help companies align with climate goals and attract investor support, while critics worry about its impact on emission reduction efforts.
The Biden administration's proposed rule change would grant approval authority over large U.S. defense contracts to a recently incorporated British environmental group called the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi). Critics argue that this move would give SBTi significant veto power over American defense contracts and access to potentially sensitive data. The group's foreign status and murky financial background, along with its connection to the Democratic Party's dark money network, raise concerns about the outsourcing of the vetting process. The proposed rule change is expected to impact numerous federal contractors and funnel millions of dollars in fees to SBTi annually. Lawmakers and U.S. businesses have raised objections to the lack of transparency and potential conflicts of interest associated with SBTi's role in the process.