Maybe you saw the headline: Climate target group in turmoil over carbon offsetting plan.
The board of the Science-Based Targets Initiative (SBTi)—a consortium established to "Lead the way to a net-zero economy, boost innovation and drive sustainable growth by setting ambitious, science-based emissions reduction targets"—jumped its own process, sidestepped its Technical Advisory Committee and its staff work on "environmental attribute certificates" (including carbon offsets), and "decided to extend their use for the purpose of abatement of Scope 3 related emissions beyond the current limits."
Carbon offsets are a difficult enough issue themselves, but here we had the messy irony of an international protocols body failing to follow its own protocols!
The reaction was swift across the climate universe, including a fierce open letter from SBTi's staff. SBTi co-founder Cynthia Cummis posted that she was "Impressed with the courage of the SBTi staff." As am I.
The issue isn’t just about the merits of carbon offsets (which is a long discussion) but about the SBTi board circumventing their own stated, formal processes, and the foundational requirement, in my view, that anything "science-based" be transparent and peer reviewed. This little kerfuffle also raises the old and oft-neglected question of "To whom is an NGO board accountable?" Its funders? Its staff? Itself? Its mission? The public interest? It matters!
Bill Baue, who's been on SBTI's case since its inception for failing to adequate address sustainability context (among other things), noted that "this instance demonstrates that the SBTi Board is NOT acting in accountability to its staff or to science, and evidence is fairly clear (from Kenza Bryan's FT piece) that the Board is dancing to the tune of its funder (Bezos Earth Fund)."
In a matter of days the SBTi board backed down. (I had figured it was pretty likely this would resolve very quickly, or that things would get weird. I'm glad it was the former. Now let’s get some popcorn, and see what happens next—since the carbon offsets matter is far from settled.)