Gold Standard’s Response to Allegations of Over-Crediting in Clean Cooking Methodologies

Gold Standard values academic scrutiny and has provided feedback to the study’s authors over the past months. It is critical to note that the study did not find actual over-estimation. Further, its conclusions are not aligned with broader academic consensus, are not supported by the evidence provided, and are inconsistent with real data.

The paper compares carbon market data with research data, noting differences but overlooking the possibility of improved results in the carbon market due to factors like user training and stove maintenance incentivised by crediting mechanisms.


Gold Standard response to Guardian Article on Bachu Biomass Power Generation Project

At Gold Standard we appreciate the scrutiny that investigative journalism can bring, and welcome contributions that help the voluntary carbon market improve and deliver on its potential to drive change where it matters most.

The allegation put to us is that cotton stalks used by the power plant are at risk of being linked to forced labour in Uyghur forced labour in Xinjiang, China. These concerns were not communicated to us prior to us being contacted by the Guardian.


Response to Guardian Article about the effectiveness of projects in the carbon market

When approached for comment on this story, we asked the Guardian to provide us with evidence to allow us to examine their claims. For two of the three projects they initially claimed were “junk” they informed us they had “relied upon” ratings from a single ratings agency.

We’ve checked with that ratings agency. They do not recognise this characterisation of their conclusions and have not described any of Gold Standard’s credits as “junk”.


UNFCCC, Gold Standard, and the Clean Cooking Alliance Partner to Strengthen Carbon Finance Opportunities in Clean Cooking


The carbon market represents a critical resource in the pursuit of net zero. It has the potential to provide funding at the scale and speed necessary to bring about large-scale transitions in the world’s energy systems and economies. However, to realize this potential, the carbon market must be able to channel funding to those solutions that are most essential to meeting our global climate goals. Clean cooking is one such solution.


The importance of trust in the carbon market

Carbon credits are not tangible. You can’t touch the tonnes of CO2 that are not in the atmosphere. Regardless of your resources, it is hard to visit the projects you are supporting and see how the benefits of the credits you have purchased are helping to meet the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). And you might not have the right expertise anyway. Methodologies to calculate emission reductions and removals are complex, relying on complicated parameters and equations to estimate impact.


COMMENT: Blockchain for better: Untangling tokenisation and carbon markets

With the hype around web 3.0, it’s important to be mindful about which decentralised approaches to deploy in carbon markets, and – importantly – how to deploy them. Technology is agnostic toward its ultimate effect. Software can help you shop from your sofa or it can deliver malware that takes down an energy grid.

So it is with tokenisation of carbon credits.