What is a “portfolio approach”? Unpacking the carbon market’s permanence debate.

​“Climate action needs a portfolio approach.”

​In climate action circles, the idea we need a “portfolio approach” is one that almost everyone can agree with. But what that portfolio looks like in practice often varies dramatically person-to-person, institution-to-institution.

​This is particularly evident in carbon market debates—most everybody agrees systemic climate action requires technological and natural climate solutions, reductions and removals, supply chain and global impact, etc. But the debate around how to define “permanence” (or the lifespan a project must have to receive carbon finance) is contentious, is nowhere near settled, and has far-reaching consequences for the make-up of any carbon market portfolio.

​The “permanence” debate is playing out in critical ways in policymaking venues – Article 6, the EU, CORSIA, U.S. state level policy, and standards frameworks – that will decide the future of carbon markets and climate finance. But this debate is rarely public, and rarely offers the various camps an opportunity hear and address the others' concerns. Without a transparent, good faith dialogue of these critical issues, we risk shaping the future of climate finance in unintended, counterproductive ways—and there is a real risk of losing the possibility of a “portfolio approach”.

​Please join a moderated discussion on permanence in carbon markets between leading thinkers in engineered removals, nature-based solutions, and atmospheric science, followed by audience Q&A.