The Net Zero Standards: ISO vs SBTi - with Mai Bui

Welcome to the CDR Policy Scoop, where we unpack carbon removal policy in 30 minutes or less. My name is Sebastian Manhart, and I am Evetamme. This scoop on Wednesday, the 12th of November, just a few days after the latest net zero draft by the SBTI came out. Our guest for the show was Mai Bui, director of climate science at SuperCraft.

We covered the standards from many angles, including are we expecting competition between the ISO and SPTI Net Zero standards? Which one of these is more likely to help scale durable removals? Decide which one to follow. And we are live!

Hello Mai. Hi Sebastian. How are you? I'm well, thanks. Hi Abe. Hi Sebastian. Thank you for having me on the show. Very excited. There's been a lot of anticipation for this topic and a lot of analysis has been shared over the last few days, I think, especially on the SPTI. Version two. So yeah, very timely topic. And obviously I'm here the the newbie compared to you two. You two are the real experts here. So I'm excited to yeah, to talk to you about this.

Yeah, very curious. I I think luckily Mai is our guest and she's she's gonna be the expert in the room here, I'm I'm sure. And so much interest in this scoop, right? So many people have signed up also for the live session. So I think there's there's a lot of kind of curiosity to understand how these two standards actually compare and what's happening and obviously what it means for removals. So can I start with my we have these two standards that are being developed

in parallel. What is happening and how are you involved in in both of these processes? Yeah, so myself I'm just on the expert working group for carbon removals for SBTI, but not involved with ISO, but have sort of heard various things from um folks who I know are involved.

And I I guess like from what I'm starting to hear, it's it's not a competition. Like for a lot of those who work on both say that they complement each other, they have distinct roles. I think ISO is a bit more broader versus SBTI a bit more detailed. oriented. So yeah, that that's kind of the trend that I'm seeing in terms of conversations I've had with folks. Yeah, the competition. So is there a competition? Is there not? I I keep hearing that they they are not

really like fully aligned, even if you think that one is broader and one is more specific, that there are still some major differences. The challenge being is that those very much involved in the ISO work cannot really talk about it. And luckily for the SPTI, we now have the the next draft version of the standard out there. So we can openly talk about it. Although yes, both of us, you and my, we have been part of the CDR.

working group in the SPTI. So we cannot talk about the conversations we had in in that group, but we can talk about the published standard. So Beating the two against each other. Make sense? I think that's the natural sort of instinct and from buyers, I've heard that sort of like, is this gonna be a choice for us between S BTI and ISO? And then you get some who corporates who are thinking about it more

that you could be compliant with both. So is there a world where by following the rules of both, you can then say we are both SBTI and ISO compliant? So it could be a sort of sign of of quality that you you follow both. or choosing one or the other and and that will be interesting to see how this evolves, what corporates will use and which approach they they follow.

Yeah, let's see about that. I one aspect I understand is that for example in terms of the the use of offsets, I mean SPTI obviously, you know, sees a role for that. And my understanding is that that ISO has been less focused on that. So that's a that's a quite substantial change, right? Or a difference between the standards and and how they approach the whole world of net zero. Yeah.

Yeah. And I I guess that so I there are some things we do know which I think were leaked. I don't know if you saw the quantum commodity intelligence article about it. Yeah. So there was some that's always under behind the paywall, right?

Uh yeah. So there was it's behind a paper that I I read this article which provided a little bit of I guess goslate say on the on the ISO and so the tidbits that came out of that was the things that we kind of you know, AETA was the one that kind of revealed some things, which is the removals would be used for residual emissions.

And then also the other part is that there will be a need to like verify these claims by providing evidence, which we all know is needed when you're kind of thinking about verifiable net zero claims. And then the last bit is this whole permanence criteria piece. So

They revealed that there's gonna be a permanence criteria of uh more than a hundred years being required for any removals that are used to neutralize the residual emissions. Interesting. Which then if we believe these little tidbits, then that would be quite different to the S B T I approach if you saw that, where they've said it's gonna be a portion that will be high durability and then the other portion sort of like low durability of sort of decade long storage options.

Can we dig into this? Because I think this is one of the crunch points that has now come out from from this draft standards, especially for the removals community. I these numbers, forty one percent and fifty nine percent is really a step away from the like-for-like principle, where we talk about balancing residual emissions with durable removals. So what do you think about it? Yeah, it's it's tricky.

I've got the sort of background who's worked a lot on the engineered removal side and so some may push and say, Well, you're just being biased but On the other side it's, you know, there is the hard sort of science, IPCC and various others saying that the carbon must be stored for a certain amount of time to have impact climate benefit. And so

that is then needed. You you see the likes of, you know, Professor Miles Allen literally saying things like, It's gotta be geologically stored in order to to actually secure that carbon away and provide the removals and um of the carbon so that we can get that climate benefit and meet these targets for one point five degrees. So

that there's a lot of signals towards the need for high durability. But then on the other hand, you've got folks saying that you need nature-based options because there's a lot of co-benefits around the social side, biodiversity. And ultimately in the future world of removals, it does rely a lot on biomass. Like, you know, you do need biomass input for bicks and biochar. And so if you don't have a healthy forestry sector, then you're not going to be able to do those options for removals.

but whether those nature based removals should sit within our target of residual emission neutralization, that's a different topic. And I don't know. Like I would say that right now engineered removals needs a stronger signal and the science says it needs to be stored for at least millennia in order to have benefit and maybe there's a role for biochar because some say it could potentially store for a thousand years. So

that that's kind of a interesting topic. I I think on my side I would say push for the high durability just because of the science and also residual emissions in the world where we neutralize properly and abate properly, the amount that you have to neutralize a residual mission should be quite small. But uh a question because uh I mean these forty one percent durable removals at net zero.

From what I understand, that's kind of a very obvious weak point of the current draft and that's they have quite they even say this is for illustrative purposes only. I know that I've seen quite a lot of people in the removals community kind of going in on that, but from what I understood, it is for illustrative purposes and that's probably not gonna stick until the end. Again, I might have gotten this wrong, but that's my under my read of the situation. Actually it's a a rule, no?

The rule does say that at least 41% has to come from long-lived. So it's actually a requirement. The part that's the illustrative part was that graph that they included that showed the ramp up. amount that y of durable removal over time. The twenty fifty amount has to be at least forty one percent was how I interpreted it. Okay. And I think quite a few commentators have gotten that wrong as well.

Because I know that kind of the 17% at 2035 ramping up to 41, that is for illustrative purposes. I got that. But I also read quite a bit of commentary that said the forty-one percent itself was gonna be reworked. If not, that seems like an obvious attack point for a science-based target initiative.

Yeah. Because it's relying on a very outdated IPCC assumption. It's it's kind of a mix of it's also by choice. So so there was like it could be forty-one percent long lived removals and then that fifty-nine percent could be short-lived. or all long lived as well. So some companies may s choose to say, no, we want a hundred percent long lived. So There's that flexibility on that side, so it's gonna be up to companies to choose. But as we know for me that flexibility is not enough.

Because I'm just frankly very disappointed that this approach was put forward. It's completely at odds with what the science is saying. We cannot have companies balancing fossil emissions. with nature based removals. Nation based removals will definitely have a role and they have to have a role, but not for this specific purpose.

And the fact that that was introduced in such a way, I mean, I'm I'm very sure there's a very, very strong push now towards and and and the feedback that the Secretariat will be getting on this.

But this is the part that has to change. I mean there are some great things in the new standard, some things that Yeah, it didn't work as I hoped for removals in the new standard, but this for me was a real red flag because this is a fundamental change and also given that the role that the SPTA has globally and how other standards are looking at it, suddenly

such a science based initiative is is changing uh like what the science is saying. Why did this happen? Because i in in the last draft they gave the two options, right? And they gave the like for like option and the option that we now ended up with. What happened? That made them choose this option which is way less defensible scientifically, as we just agree. Nature and C D R uh or something along the lines is a title, we'll put it in the show notes as well.

where they elaborate. But I mean there's partially the reasoning how they relied on on the modeling and the outcome there. But the fact is that Not every company is going to represent uh what the models show globally, that they they're gonna have, you know, forty one percent of residual emissions uh that are fossil based and the others are not. There are gonna be companies that have hundred percent residual emissions from from fossil emissions.

So that's just not representative. That's really weird. And and also the fear that has come up a lot of, you know, we don't have durable removals available yet enough, and so we need to still scale them up.

I mean that worries me, that whole narrative, because if we don't create the demand through this standard, then Where will these obviously there are other things happening in compliance markets and s and so on, but I mean SPTI had a chance to create something, but there's some requirements also before twenty thirty five.

for turbo removals and they didn't do it. So everything we have before that is is voluntary. And that's a missed opportunity because that's ten years where some players will do something but we we could have had

more. Of course we know that there's always this challenge of finding the balance of being realistic and for the SBTI to to get more companies that are willing to take on the target, but then also having the right ambition, you know, within the standard. And it's it's a hard balance to strike. But but working in this sector, I mean, I was hoping for some more

Rant over. That's okay. But they are, I mean, to play devil's advocate, I was reading Lucas May's analysis from Asymmetric and I always very much appreciate his analysis and he was trying he painted a positive picture. And his picture, for example, is, you know, he said, okay, in twenty twenty-four there were these workshops.

CDR was promised the world, it was all on track. Then we got the first draft in March. It was basically a shit show. And now it's getting a bit more on track. And his main argument is that The volume in the last draft we saw in March was 0.7% of scope one emissions, right? Which has now kind of moved to 1%. of scope one to three emissions. which is significantly more, uh four to five times he says. And if you believe that the SPTI is at the end of the day a completely voluntary scheme.

So actually the idea of using kind of this voluntary competitive incentive of, you know, we're gonna recognize you as a leader and as somebody who's taking responsibility, that that actually fits right into how SPTI should work. And that the volumes we might see with this version could actually be much higher than what we saw in my

Again, playing devil's advocate. I thought it was interesting because it was the first positive spin I saw to to this. I think it really the the problem is like the flexibility piece on that side where yes you've now opened up for more scope.

like one, two and three is included. And then one, it really depends on the company profile on the size of their scope one, two, and three and those proportions. And then the other piece is like the two models where you could be just a recognized entry level type of tier approach or the leadership and it's if everyone follows the recognized

sort of entry-level tier labeling, then actually it's probably going to be quite a small amount of removals versus if you then start seeing companies doing the leadership piece and that's where you start getting sort of meaningful impact. But the fact that it's

Optional to choose between the two. But the recognized is still more than 1%. So Lucas was actually saying the recognized that that's already Actually quite a lot because it's it's more than one percent of your total emissions. A minimum of one percent. Yeah. I I guess like we'd have to see case studies to see what that actually looks like from a yeah, scope one. But yeah, you do see companies that have quite significant

scope three emissions. But then the other thing is I think if you read the fine print, it also says that you can do this scope three emission, residual emissions by either one negotiating and talking with your suppliers. or potentially if it's something that's out of your control then there might be some justification piece around that. So

it it's hard to say that that would be a requirement that they must buy removals for that scope three residual emissions because there are other mechanisms that they could use to decarbonize that. That may be this you know, negotiation with your suppliers, for example, is one. Do you think that beyond value chain mitigation is dead? That's another thing that Lucas was saying, which I thought was interesting. Uh I don't think it's dead. No. I would say it's

the way it's it's presented, it's a combination of the two, right? And so you've now got this new th framework called ongoing emissions. Of which could be your beyond value chain and some of that is your removals and they've kind of integrated the two into this one framework.

When we look at removals and we look at these two standards, I mean being obviously aware that we we don't have the draft standard in front of us for ISO, but which one do you think will play a bigger role in helping to scale removals? Uh, for now I'd say there's sort of firm Firma knowledge around who signed up to SBTI because We know they've got this membership, it's, you know, transparent. It's it's published online. So we know there are companies who have signed up to S BTI. So

at in the immediate term I would say that's got direct impact and we know and can kinda size that impact based on that membership profile. Whereas with ISO We don't know. One,'cause they haven't published it, and two, it's it's gonna be a wait and see how many adopt that. And With ISO typically like

you know, th you've got different levels of participation where some might just be ISO compliant, there will need to be like a certification process as well. So some companies might want to be ISO certified. And so that whole framework still has to be developed and it might take some time to implement. So I say in near term wise, SBTI is the part that we know will have direct impact right now. But near term, I understand until twenty thirty five we might not see

anything. So really for me, even SBTI is in the best case. long term, not even medium term. Or am I missing something? That that's the hope. Yeah. I mean you're you're getting companies who should be signing up to twenty fifty commitments. So the hope is they're gonna stay on till at least twenty fifty. Like that

the whole point of them signing up, right? So long term, if we count that as twenty fifty, that should be the case, that SPTI is still there. And it's whether companies choose to add on the ISO potentially. But also SBTI is voluntary. So you could get companies shifting and saying we're going to withdraw from SBTI and go on to ISO. But as, you know, some have said, like, there's differences in those two standards. Like there could be a world where they complement each other or

Yeah. It it's hard to say until we see the standard though, to be honest. So Yeah. And when will we see it? Because I mean if you read different uh news pieces from earlier this year, they were supposed to release a draft standard for consultation during COP thirty. Which is now ongoing, but we haven't heard anything or I haven't seen any recent news that anything is going to come out.

Because I kind of assume that both of these standards will c move in lockstep and we will see final versions in early twenty twenty six for both. But now I'm I'm not sure. Yeah. I mean ISO themselves a year ago said that they planned to release it during COP thirty.

Unfortunately I guess it's taken a lot of time, more time than expected to get that draft ready. So we don't actually know when exactly it will be released, but let's see, I guess. I think The latest bit was suggesting that it might be late twenty twenty five, so maybe not during COP but after, but hard to say.

Can I ask more I'm still not clear on ISO and I think many people in the audience are not. Because this is framed as kind of okay, SBTI is much more specific, detailed, ISO is more higher level. But then one person wrote to me basically saying that ISO has a requirement to state the volume of removals you anticipate needing at net zero, a requirement to demonstrate how you credibly plan to get there, and a requirement to set interim removal milestone to claim progress.

That seems pretty detailed to me. That's not high level. That goes straight into territory of SPTI. So is what I just said true? That was again somebody who's very close to the process told me about ISO. If so, that seems to overlap a lot with SPTI. Why am I missing something? Someone's giving you lots of detail, Sebastian. Yeah, so if that is

if that is the case then yeah, that that level of detail. But I guess the second piece often is okay with ISO, in order for it to be sort of a true sort of company that's following it. they would need to first also undergo the certification piece and like what is the rules around that? So if it's just that higher level of you must provide evidence, like what is that evidence? So

Where's that detail? Not quite sure if that's gonna be developed as part of it and often with ISO it's a portfolio of standards that you didn't follow. And so The question is whether they develop those other complementary standards that are needed for, you know, reporting, for accounting, for verification, whether that's also in development right now. And so if that is the case then yeah, that level of detail is

pretty pretty high and in terms of s requirements. But the other thing is often with the wording where they say here you quantify your anticipated, let's say, residual emissions. But the thing is your anticipated residual emissions is based on what you

feel could be feasible and there's this argument of, you know, is it gonna be carbon capture or hydrogen or electrification? And for a lot of companies they will be making these decisions on like what to do and I think an interesting piece that kinda came out earlier this year was What do we define as like hard to abate? There's gonna be a cost

associated with abatement and a cost associated with removals, there will be a point where there's a tipping point where actually removals might be cheaper. And so do we allow those companies to do the removals? Or do we still push them and say, no, abatement first because that's a priority, but if it becomes less cost effective, like is that a strong enough justification to to do that just because of these principles or ideal ideology that we have?

That's one point and another concern that I have that it's very commonly n now we see removals linked to residual emissions only. And I mean it's it's a bit putting the chance of scaling removals a bit on the back burner because we will only know exactly, you know, what those remissions registry emissions are, you know, later in the coming decades. And if there is

like no initiative to or no incentive to do something right now or in the next years, then again I feel like it's it's a missed opportunity to help actually create that market and to create that demand. And so I I really hope to see that maybe from ISO maybe there will be a chance to get a better signal for demand for removals already before twenty thirty five. So if you compare it with the SPTI standard, for example. One more question I have on ISO and adoption.

And again, naive questions, but SPDI obviously corporates just decide to sign up because they want to. I saw from the way you just describe it, might as well. companies can decide that they want to be ISO compliant. Is there another mechanism that is not voluntary? Like what is the scenario where in a specific jurisdiction or specific sector or whatever it is,

companies have to comply with this ISO standard. That would be up to governments, right? And so at a national level, where the governments decide to kind of enforce certain rules and and adopt certain standards and under their sort of framework. And there's sort of signals that there's interest in removals at a government level and introduction of these removals into compliance markets from the UK, from the EU and even in Japan, they're already integrating engineered removals into their ETS.

system. So but with ISO, because we we're aware of these ETS integrations, but w where does ISO fit into it? Yeah, I I mean ISO is a very well known body and I think an ISO standard exists, people just generally will adopt it because that is now the standard. So even if you look with registries littered throughout the pages as follow the ISO standard for LCA, follow the ISO standard for this.

And so once an ISO standard exists, the natural tendency is like, let's fall on that as our point of truth for You know, source of truth around the rules to do this thing, which in the case with ISO, like they'll have that sort of credibility because they associate with that. But not saying that SPTI don't have that credibility. They've been around along and they've been engaging with a lot of the companies. So the hope is like what they've created.

has buy in from companies. So that's the key difference on that side is like they've been engaged in this process for quite some time. And ISO They have existed and now this new thing will come out. I think companies will be reading it and then figuring out whether they want to take on that adoption. And if governments choose to make it mandatory, then that would be a way to just do like full

forceful way of adoption essentially. But I think that's something we'd have to hear and wait for governments to signal on whether that's the case. I think it's it's gonna be hard to say because governments they've kind of really been quite tight-lipped around that piece. Like right now it's talking about the methodologies of just like the projects themselves.

signalling things like concerns around quality, what is the permanence criteria, but the more detail around whether they're gonna start introducing and adopting things like ISO standard is still not yet clear. But you know, if you take the UK for example The fact that they develop BSI standards is interesting. as a way of adopting

you know, some formalised yeah standard body to then create standards. That signals, at least in the UK side, this sort of recognition that these standard bodies like BSI, ISO have an important role and that's why they've gone with that approach. So if you can kind of look at that as a potential signal to pull on, then you could think maybe in a well. Eva, what's your take? ISO in kind of non voluntary setup.

I mean it ISA has a different ring to it, right? Than the SPTI and a different history and and all of this. It's actually an interesting element. I haven't thought about like how how would governments go about it and whether I mean, because it it feels different. It feels somehow more kind of institutional, you know, with with a long history.

there is a strong brand around it. So we we do see governments looking at, you know, kind of the the meta standards like the I C B C M and so on from the voluntary market, but ISO rings different. ISO would be probably something that the governments would be even more likely to consider if if there is a standard. So yes, I think there there is possibility that should these standards, you know, come out and and and be credible, let's let's see the feedback.

the uptake uh from the government says has some likelihoods. Can I ask you a very it's more of a fun final question. So overall the latest SPTI draft, if that were the final draft? Four durable removals. Good or bad, you can point a finger and I'll narrate. It would be here. What about you, my I'm So F gave a neutral horse.

Part so everyone's being so diplomatic. There's a reason why, which is they haven't given the full detail on like the interim target piece and I think that's gonna be the crucial factor'cause like what is that interim target requirement gonna look like? And that will tell you whether it's gonna be good or bad, right? But that's still gonna be voluntary, right? So n even if they give us clearer numbers, it's still gonna be voluntary numbers.

Yeah, it's it's a tough one. Okay, okay. I'm not getting more out of you than that today. And with that we're up on time. But this was great. And we covered a lot of ground, so I'm sure it was interesting for the listeners. Yeah. And yeah, thanks Mike for joining us. thank you have a nice evening