1.8K
Over the last years, the team at Scature has interacted with over 10,000 people.
© Scature. All Rights Reserved 2024.
Privacy Policy
Crafted by
Gorazdo
The Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has placed increasing pressure on companies to commit to ambitious climate goals. As reporting requirements tighten, businesses are being pushed to address climate issues head-on, including the debate around emission reduction credits (ERCs) and carbon removal credits (CRCs). While many organisations are working to reduce their direct emissions, they’re increasingly turning to carbon credits as a way to offset what they cannot eliminate. But not all carbon credits are created equal, and a key debate has emerged: which approach is more effective for addressing the climate crisis—emission reduction credits (ERCs) or carbon removal credits (CRCs)?
While both ERCs and CRCs play important roles in the carbon market, the need for carbon removal is becoming increasingly clear. Reducing emissions alone is no longer enough. Climate models show that even if all emissions were to stop today, the carbon already in the atmosphere would continue to drive global warming. This is why carbon removal is now seen as crucial for achieving net-zero and reversing environmental damage. Projects that focus on CRCs, like reforestation, ocean carbon capture, and soil regeneration, are designed to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and store it in natural sinks.
ERCs can be effective in preventing future emissions, but they don’t tackle the emissions that have accumulated over decades. For example, investing in solar energy reduces the reliance on fossil fuels, but it doesn’t address the need to remove carbon that’s already warming the planet. On the other hand, CRCs directly remove carbon from the air, ensuring that we address both present and past emissions. This makes CRCs a vital tool in long-term climate solutions. Whether it’s through restoring forests or enhancing the carbon storage potential of oceans, CRCs offer the only path to reversing, not just mitigating, the damage that’s already been done.
Carbon offsets allow companies to compensate for their emissions by investing in projects that reduce or remove CO2 from the atmosphere. ERCs are linked to activities that prevent future emissions, such as renewable energy projects like wind farms or solar panels. These projects help reduce the amount of GHGs that would otherwise enter the atmosphere. However, ERCs don’t address the carbon that’s already contributing to climate change. On the other hand, CRCs focus on capturing and storing existing carbon through processes like afforestation, ocean-based carbon sequestration, and soil regeneration. These projects remove CO2 that’s already in the atmosphere, offering a direct countermeasure to the damage already done.
The type of carbon credits a company chooses can significantly impact the effectiveness of its offset strategy. Many companies opt for ERCs because they tend to be more affordable and are tied to renewable energy projects that prevent further emissions. These projects are beneficial, but they are only part of the equation. Preventing future emissions is critical, but it doesn’t address the enormous amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere. For example, a company that invests in solar panels may be preventing future emissions, but it’s not actively cleaning up the excess carbon that’s been building up for decades.
In contrast, CRCs are often more expensive but far more effective for long-term sustainability. These credits fund projects that physically remove CO2 from the atmosphere and store it safely. Projects like reforestation or ocean-based carbon capture are designed to sequester carbon in natural sinks, providing a more permanent and impactful solution. Although CRCs come at a higher cost, they offer a much more direct approach to addressing the urgent need for carbon removal, ultimately making a greater contribution toward reaching true net-zero.
Both ERCs and CRCs contribute to the global effort to reduce carbon emissions, but recent research highlights the critical role that CRCs must play in achieving true net-zero. The urgency of the climate crisis means we can’t just focus on stopping new emissions—we must also deal with the carbon we’ve already released. Carbon removal strategies are increasingly recognized as essential for addressing this challenge. Without CRCs, there’s no way to offset the carbon that’s been accumulating for decades, meaning the planet will continue to warm even if new emissions are cut to zero.
In fact, the carbon market is evolving to prioritise removal strategies. While emission reductions remain important, there is growing recognition that they alone cannot achieve the scale of impact needed to meet the Paris Agreement’s goals. By focusing on CRCs, businesses and governments can make a more meaningful contribution to reversing the trend of global warming, rather than simply slowing it.
As we look toward a sustainable future, businesses need to choose carbon strategies that drive real, lasting impact. While ERCs can offer a cost-effective way to reduce future emissions, they’re only a short-term solution. For companies committed to long-term sustainability and climate responsibility, carbon removal is essential. CRCs provide the only reliable way to address the legacy of emissions that are already in the atmosphere, making them a critical tool in the fight against climate change.
At Scature, we specialise in carbon removal projects that not only offset emissions but also contribute to regenerating natural ecosystems and reversing environmental damage. By focusing on removal rather than reduction, we help companies take a leadership role in the fight against climate change. Additionally, we support insetting strategies, enabling businesses to remove emissions within their own value chains, further enhancing their sustainability efforts. If you're interested in removing your atmospheric carbon, Book a call with us today!
