Carbon market Q+A

Louise Robb is the Carbon Program Manager at FutureFeed. She has over two decades of experience in Australia and international environmental markets. We asked Louise to help demystify carbon credits, low carbon product claims and Scope 3 reporting in the context of FutureFeed’s work.

Q. What is a carbon credit?

Louise: A carbon credit can also be called an “offset”. There are various definitions, however, put simply, you can generate one carbon credit by reducing emissions or removing from the atmosphere 1 tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (1 t/CO2-e). If a carbon credit is sold to another person or entity to offset their emissions, it can no longer be counted by you in your carbon accounts.

In Australia there is currently no methodology under the Australian Carbon Credit Unit (ACCU) scheme to generate carbon credits or make other verifiable claims from interventions that reduce enteric methane emissions. However, there are two international voluntary standards that do have methodologies that can be implemented in Australia (and overseas). For example, the Gold Standard and VERRA both have methodologies for calculating the emissions reduction from the inclusion of a feed additive into the diet of livestock.

Q. What if you don’t want to sell carbon credits?

Louise: Rather than selling carbon credits, a producer may wish to keep the environmental benefit for their own business. They could use it to help balance their carbon accounts for a future net zero claim or a carbon neutral project. Alternatively, if a beef or dairy producer feeds their livestock Asparagopsis and significantly reduces methane emissions, they may wish to sell their produce with a verified low carbon claim. (This is not possible if the producer has sold the emissions reductions in the form of a carbon credit).

Q. What is scope 3 reporting?

Louise: Australian and global corporates are increasingly setting net zero targets and taking stock of their greenhouse gas (GHG) emission footprint, including emissions from their supply chains (known as Scope 3 emissions).

Corporates in many jurisdictions have Scope 3 reporting obligations, and others may volunteer to report under an international framework such as the Science Based Target initiative (SBTi). In either case, these companies are seeking to engage with their suppliers to invest in low emission technologies and interventions that can supply verified low carbon goods and services.

Enteric methane from cattle is a major contributor to scope 3 emissions for retailers selling beef and dairy products. So FutureFeed is working with global partners to help map and navigate this pathway.

Q. Do emissions claims need to be verified by an independent third party?

Louise: Yes, all projects need to be third-party audited. All project interventions to reduce emissions should be implemented using a methodology from a credible standard such as the ACCU scheme or international standards such as those mentioned above.  

Q. What is FutureFeed doing to help facilitate environmental claims for those using Asparagopsis?

Louise: FutureFeed, Asparagopsis growers and other stakeholders are collectively working on numerous fronts to ensure that livestock and dairy producers using Asparagopsis will have the right set of tools and information to make a suite of environmental claims.

FutureFeed conducts controlled scientific trials feeding livestock precise amounts of freeze-dried Asparagopsis or Asparagopsis-oil to ensure there is peer reviewed scientific data available. This data provides the evidence required for market mechanisms and methods.

FutureFeed has been instrumental in establishing an industry working group to progress the development of a methodology under the ACCU scheme, so watch this space. 

Previous
Previous

CH4 Global: “This is no longer an R&D experiment”

Next
Next

Seaweed Quality: Q+A with Dr Breanna Roque