Posted on

How We Choose Climate Projects

At GoClimate, we prioritize quality and efficiency in our support for climate projects. Our rigorous selection process is based on the following criteria to ensure that every project we support truly contributes to climate improvements.

Certification: We require that an independent third party certifies the projects, guaranteeing that they meet continuously updated and increasingly higher standards.

Additionality: It’s crucial that the projects would not have been realized without funding from climate initiatives. This principle ensures that our investment leads to a real change.

Verification: The climate benefit of each project is verified by an independent third party, ensuring its efficiency and credibility.

Traceability: We ensure that funding is traceable through transparent and open databases. This prevents double counting and ensures the project’s uniqueness.

Durability: The projects must offer lasting effect, meaning the benefits do not disappear over time.

Contribution to Sustainable Development: Beyond the direct climate benefits, the projects should also contribute to sustainable development, such as creating job opportunities or contributing to cleaner air. It’s important that the projects do not contribute to negative social development where they are implemented.

At GoClimate, we focus on supporting the best climate projects. We have chosen to work only with projects certified by Gold Standard. This is because we believe that Gold Standard has the strictest and best requirements for climate projects.

What Makes Gold Standard So Special?

Stringent Requirements: Gold Standard has stricter rules compared to other standards. They ensure that the projects really need the money to be implemented and continue to make a difference.

Focus on the 1.5-Degree Target: Projects supported by Gold Standard are those that help us reach our global climate goals. This means that they do not support projects linked to fossil fuels or nuclear energy.

Updated Requirements: Gold Standard regularly updates its requirements to ensure that the money is used where it is most beneficial for the climate.

Our conclusion is that supporting Gold Standard-certified projects is the best way to make a difference right now. However, we are open to changing our approach if we find other ways to achieve even greater climate benefits in the future.

Please feel free to contact us if you think there’s something we’ve missed, as we are always open to learning more!

Posted on

Climate projects reducing greenhouse gases

Projects focusing on reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can be divided into two main types: nature projects and technical projects.

3.1 Nature Projects

These projects include tree planting and conservation of existing forests. They are strongly encouraged by leading climate initiatives such as Science Based Targets and Exponential Roadmap, and are critical in addressing the climate crisis and the perhaps even greater crisis in biodiversity. Trees are a proven method for capturing carbon dioxide and require no new technology or cost-reducing innovations to be effective.

3.1.1 The Reason We Do Not Support This Type of Project (Yet)

Despite the importance of these projects, there are complexities surrounding land use and the durability of biology that must be addressed. Issues such as the alternative use of land, suitability of tree species, and tree growth under changing climate conditions are important. There is also uncertainty about how long the carbon dioxide actually stays stored in the trees. In addition, many previous tree projects have not lived up to their quality expectations. Higher costs per ton of greenhouse gas compared to emission reduction projects is another challenge.

3.2 Technical Projects

According to the IPCC, it is necessary to remove large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in the coming years. Technical projects, or ‘removals,’ are a rapidly growing and exciting area where many companies compete to develop the most effective and cost-efficient methods. For example, ClimeWorks uses giant fans similar to technical trees, and other companies are creating biochar for storage in the soil. This type of project is continuously monitored and evaluated by several initiatives.

3.2.1 The Reason We Do Not Support This Type of Project (Yet)

Currently, the cost of removing one ton of CO2e from the atmosphere using these methods is extremely high, for example, ClimeWorks costs about $1,200 per ton CO2e. Cheaper alternatives include biochar, but they are still costly. Critics argue that these technologies have difficulties scaling up to necessary levels and can distract from the main task of reducing emissions. In addition, paying private companies involves a lack of transparency and third-party certification of climate benefits.

However, we are convinced that the development of this type of project is necessary and are excited to see how the market grows!

Please get in touch at [email protected] if you think we have missed something, we are always open to learning more!

Posted on

Projects Contributing to Reduced Emissions

This is part three of our article series about how we consider the climate projects we support. This part is about the projects that contribute to reduced emissions and covers the projects that GoClimate primarily supports today. 

This category includes, for example, energy-efficient stoves that reduce the need for wood and thus deforestation. There are also projects in renewable energy that reduce the need for coal power plants and those that handle harmful methane gas by converting it into electricity, replacing fossil energy sources. More examples of these climate projects are available here.

2.1 Why We Support This Type of Project

There is scientific consensus that it is urgent to reduce the world’s emissions. Therefore, it is reasonable that at the present time, when there is so much left to do, the focus should simply be on supporting projects that reduce the world’s emissions.

2.1.1 The Technology is Already Here

To reduce emissions, both capital and technology dissemination are required. The necessary technology to cope with climate change already exists to a large extent, but it needs to be spread, financed, and implemented. The type of climate financing that we, our members, and customers contribute to plays a big role here; this is exactly what is needed to speed up the transition. But it’s not just a question of investing money, the projects must be effective and well thought out too.

2.2 Challenges with These Types of Projects

The climate benefit of the projects is often calculated based on hypothetical scenarios, which can be problematic. Changed subsidies, norms, and knowledge levels can affect the projects over time. Some projects may no longer need support due to technical development and price reductions in renewable energy. However, the role of climate financing is crucial. It has historically contributed to economies of scale and price reductions, meaning that some projects no longer need the same support. To manage these dynamic factors, one can choose to support newer projects or specific years.

Despite the complexity of these projects, we are convinced that they can be supported effectively, especially if the right type of project is chosen.

2.3 Projects We Do Not Support in This Category

In this category are projects that we consider to be less efficient or problematic. For example, we do not support the construction of large-scale hydroelectric power plants, as they require large land areas and can have a negative impact on both the environment and local communities.

New renewable energy projects in countries not on the UN’s list of least developed countries are also not certified according to the standard – Gold Standard – that we go by. These projects are often considered to not need financial support to the same extent as they did in the past.

However, it is important to understand the climate credit market and how it affects the lifespan and financing of projects. We still support certain energy projects that would not be certified today, because if we stop supporting certain projects that were certified because climate financing was deemed necessary earlier, it could undermine the confidence in the climate credit market and make it more difficult for future projects to get financing.

We also do not support local projects in Sweden, as the country already has access to financing and relatively low climate emissions compared to other regions. Our strategy is to support projects where they can have the greatest positive climate impact. Even though projects like solar cell support in Sweden can be beneficial, financing does more good when used in other countries, for example, those with a higher mix of fossil fuel sources in their electricity mix.

Please get in touch ([email protected]) if you think there’s anything we’ve missed; we are always open to learning more!