Couverture de The CDR Policy Scoop

The CDR Policy Scoop

The CDR Policy Scoop

De : Eve Tamme and Sebastian Manhart
Écouter gratuitement

Get the Scoop on the latest CDR policy developments with Eve Tamme and Sebastian Manhart.


Punchy, unfiltered, to the point discussions on all hot developments in the sector.


Listen in to go several levels deeper and beyond the analysis that you won't find anywhere else. Enjoy.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

0ac91ce0-7e6e-11f0-8845-453024790205
Politique et gouvernement Science Sciences de la Terre Sciences politiques
Épisodes
  • ISO, SBTi, and the LCAW Verdict on Corporate Net Zero - with Kaya Axelsson
    Jun 30 2026

    In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme are joined by Kaya Axelsson, Research and Policy Fellow at Oxford Net Zero, just days after what she describes as the most anticipated Monday of her year: June 22, when both the ISO Net Zero Standard and the SBTi Corporate Net Zero Standard launched at London Climate Action Week. Kaya spent three years inside both standard-setting processes, and the conversation captures what this convergence moment actually means for companies, for carbon markets, and for carbon removal.


    The episode opens on what Kaya calls the single global playbook. Her case: the two standards don't fundamentally contradict each other. ISO is wider in scope, internationally governed via WTO-compatible processes, and a natural tool for trade policy, green public procurement, and claims legislation, particularly in markets across Africa and Asia that SBTi has yet to reach. SBTi brings detailed near-term implementation guidance and the momentum of eleven thousand companies already signed up. Kaya explains how she sees companies using them together and what each does better than the other.


    But she is not without concerns. The episode surfaces a significant one: a potential communication error in the SBTi standard that risks allowing companies to claim net zero alignment without ever setting a long-term net zero target. For CDR, the implications are direct. SBTi's decision not to require removals purchases before 2035 is, in Kaya's view, a cost-based rather than science-based call, and a missed opportunity to start scaling the supply of what companies will eventually need. ISO, by contrast, requires five-year removal milestones from the outset.


    The conversation closes on what comes next: the governance of commodity certificates such as green steel, SAF, cement, which both standards now actively encourage companies to purchase. Kaya predicts this will be the defining debate at the next London Climate Action Week, and explains why getting the governance architecture right matters as much as the demand signal itself.


    Links

    • Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and Website
    • Sebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and Website
    • Kaya Axelsson: LinkedIn and Website
    • ISO Net Zero Standard
    • SBTi Corporate Net Zero Standard
    • Robert Höglund & Claire Wigg’s: Exponential Roadmap InitiativeBuild the world your net zero target assumes


    Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

    Afficher plus Afficher moins
    28 min
  • Inside the ISO Net Zero Standard - with Delia Meth-Cohn
    Jun 18 2026

    In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Sebastian Manhart sits down with Delia Meth-Cohn, Co-founder of Rethinking Removals, who has been part of the ISO Net Zero Aligned Organization Standard working group from its very first meeting, two years ago.


    The conversation opens on why Delia got involved, recruited by the British Standards Institute to make sure removals expertise was in the room from the start. She explains what makes ISO structurally different from SBTi: where SBTi is a voluntary framework for leading, self-selecting companies, ISO is built to be globally applicable, rooted in national standards bodies and the WTO framework, and designed to accommodate countries with different net zero end dates, from Europe’s 2050 to China’s 2060 and Saudi Arabia’s 2070.


    The discussion gets to the heart of what the standard actually does on removals: it makes the implicit removals target in net zero frameworks explicit. Companies setting a long-term reduction target must treat whatever remains as their “anticipated residual emissions”, and that figure becomes a removal target they are required to plan toward, with a validated first milestone within five years. Delia is clear that flexibility is intentional: the strategy can involve a portfolio of credits, removals within operations, or value chain approaches, so long as the trajectory is defensible and verified.


    Sebastian pushes on the question of ambition and comparability: can two companies with very different removal strategies both receive the same ISO certification? Delia acknowledges the tension and closes on a call to action: the standard is currently in public consultation, comments feed through national standards bodies into the final draft, and this is the CDR community’s real window to push back on anything that falls short. The final standard is expected by mid-2027.


    Links
    • Sebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and Website
    • Delia Meth-Cohn: LinkedIn and Rethinking Removals
    • ISO Net Zero Aligned Organization Standard (public consultation)

    Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

    Afficher plus Afficher moins
    30 min
  • Green-Hushing, Safe Harbors, and Who Actually Owns a Carbon Credit - with Dr Ruth Dagan
    Jun 17 2026

    In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Sebastian Manhart sits down with Dr. Ruth Dagan, Senior Partner and Head of Environment & Climate Change at Herzog Law, and Co-Chair of the IETA Legal Working Group, to cover two legal challenges that are quietly suppressing corporate demand for carbon credits.


    The first is litigation risk. Since 2022, climate washing claims have increased by seventy percent globally, with around 160 cases on the books and fifty-four relating specifically to carbon credit offsets. Apple's carbon neutral Watch campaign was lost in Germany and only tentatively won in the US. The upshot is that many companies are choosing to say nothing about their climate action at all. Ruth calls this green-hushing, and argues it is actively draining demand from the voluntary carbon market.


    The conversation covers the two regulatory responses now taking shape: the EU Empowering Consumers Directive, coming into force in September, which blacklists product-level carbon neutrality claims outright, and California's AB 1911, which proposes the opposite, a safe harbor that would actively protect companies using high-integrity credits. Ruth outlines the work being led by IETA and the Coalition to Grow Carbon Markets, now backed by eleven governments.


    The second challenge is more fundamental: most carbon credit registries, including PACM, include explicit disclaimers that they make no legal statement about who actually owns the credits in an account. Ruth explains how this came to be, what it means for institutional investment, and how the Unidroit project, due to conclude in early 2027, offers a route to resolution.


    Links
    • Sebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and Website
    • Dr. Ruth Dagan: LinkedIn and Profile
    • Empowering Consumers Directive
    • California AB 1911
    • Coalition to Grow Carbon Markets / IETA safe harbor report
    • Grantham Institute Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation


    Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

    Afficher plus Afficher moins
    30 min
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
Aucun commentaire pour le moment