Oakland, CA – Today, Amazon Watch and allied organizations including the Indigenous Environmental Network, Friends of the Earth, Family Farm Defenders, and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy submitted their opposition to the Science Based Targets Initiative’s (SBTi) newly-proposed Forests, Land, and Agriculture (FLAG) emissions targets. The proposed FLAG targets are incompatible with the action necessary to address the climate crisis.
Several organizations are expressing concerns about the proposed FLAG targets’ inclusion of carbon removals, which would allow companies to “offset” greenhouse gas emissions in exchange for commitments to forest protection, as well as its use of carbon intensity targets, which would allow commodity producers like beef and soy companies to keep emitting indefinitely.
The Science Based Targets Initiative is a partnership between the United Nations Global Compact and several nonprofit organizations including CDP, World Resources Institute, and the World Wide Fund for Nature. The initiative sets emissions targets and standards for the private sector and is considered a leading voice on best practices for setting so-called net zero emissions targets. Over 2000 businesses and financial institutions have committed to SBTi targets, including notorious polluters like Nestlé, Amazon, and Delta Airlines.
Carbon Offsets: An Unacceptable Loophole
SBTi’s proposed FLAG targets include “biogenic carbon removals,” meaning that they will allow tree-planting and forest preservation efforts by companies to count as “negative emissions” against their targets. This is a gross distortion of both science and climate justice. Further, the latest research indicates that carbon removals are not symmetric with emissions reductions, meaning that carbon removals cannot be trusted to reduce atmospheric CO2 at the scale that real emissions reductions can. What’s more, these projects frequently violate Indigenous land rights, perpetuating colonial conservation models and enabling land grabs by outside actors.
Carbon Intensity Targets: Big Ag’s Dream
SBTi’s proposed FLAG targets also allow producers of specific commodities such as beef and soy to set emissions intensity targets rather than absolute targets. This means that instead of reducing their overall emissions, these companies must only commit to reducing emissions per unit. Intensity targets have been used as a greenwashing strategy by oil titans such as Shell because they allow producers to increase overall emissions while claiming efficiency gains. Commodity producers in beef and soy are some of the worst contributors to agricultural emissions and frequently encroach on Indigenous land in order to expand their business. Allowing carbon intensity targets gives them a pass to continue emitting and expanding indefinitely.
Quotes from Civil Society Organizations
Roshan Krishnan, Climate Finance Campaigner at Amazon Watch, said: “SBTi has positioned themselves as a safeguard against corporate greenwash, but their proposed FLAG targets are rife with industry-friendly false solutions that undermine real action for protecting forests and our climate while threatening Indigenous rights. These obvious handouts to the agribusiness industry will allow some of the worst companies in the world like JBS and Cargill to keep violating Indigenous rights, spewing carbon, and destroying important biomes such as the Amazon rainforest, driving it past the tipping point of ecological collapse.”
Tom Goldtooth, Executive Director of the Indigenous Environmental Network said: “The SBTi’s proposed FLAG targets are more fake offsets allowing polluters and the private industry to continue colonizing and privatizing Indigenous Peoples’ lands, ignoring our inherent rights and causing continued violence to Mother Earth.”
Patti Naylor, Iowa organic farmer and Family Farm Defenders member, said: “The prospect of climate change is frightening, but just as frightening are politically safe false solutions like carbon markets. We can’t ignore the free-market policies and subsequent low prices for farmers while corporate consumers reap massive profits. The goal should be to eliminate pollution, not to commodify it.”
Jeff Conant, Senior International Forests Program Director at Friends of the Earth, said: “Allowing forest carbon removals to count towards emissions reduction targets is a mistake that will allow polluters to keep polluting while threatening the sovereignty of local forest guardians. The science tells us that, yes, forests need to be protected and restored, but not at the expense of real emissions drawdown.”
Dr. Steve Suppan of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy said: “The proposed standard has shortcomings that must be remedied in the final version of the standard to guide the companies to rapidly reduce their emissions. SBTi must keep these companies focused on direct emissions reductions, and not recommend that companies divert their finances to emissions offset trading in the financial markets.”
