SEATTLE — Climate Pledge Arena’s ice is made from rainwater, the Zambonis are electric and its roof is essentially recycled, dating back to the venue’s previous version, built in 1962.
From solar panels in the parking lot to free public transportation to attend games, the building’s operators have gone green at every opportunity, leading to the announcement in October that it is the world’s first “zero carbon” certified arena.
It’s a topic that some carbon experts say is difficult to prove.
The 18,300-seat arena produces few direct emissions from its operations, but to offset the greenhouse gases produced during its construction, Seattle-based Amazon purchased voluntary carbon credits sourced from the Colombian rainforest. The voluntary offset market is abuzz with scientific findings suggesting that many carbon projects, especially those designed to prevent deforestation, routinely overestimate their impact.
“Are we seeing limitations in the legacy carbon market? “The answer is yes,” said Jamey Mulligan, head of carbon neutralization science and strategy at Amazon, adding that the company is using its scale to develop the market.
In an interview, Mulligan said the company purchased the credits several years ago, when the company was just getting started in the carbon market. He said Amazon believes this particular project used relatively conservative estimates and is of high quality, but also recognizes that the voluntary carbon market needs more rigor.
More “work is needed” for nature-based carbon credit projects in general to ensure baseline estimates are conservative and methodologies are robust, Mulligan said.
“This is a market that needs to succeed, and it needs to scale well beyond where it operates today,” he said. “And it can’t get there without trust.”
Donna Lee, a principal at carbon rating company Calyx Global, said her firm’s analysis showed that the rainforest credits purchased for the arena likely helped prevent some deforestation. But Lee also said the project was at “extreme credit risk,” meaning it likely claimed more benefits than it provided, according to the Calyx analysis.
The failure of the people at Climate Pledge Arena, backed by Amazon’s wealthy insiders and a long cadre of sustainability workers, to convince outside experts that their offsets live up to their billing on paper shows just how deep the credibility crisis in the voluntary carbon market has become. .
If the Climate Pledge Arena is a monument to the possibilities of a green future, it is also a prime example of how difficult it can be to achieve true carbon neutrality.
“They’ve made some good-intentioned efforts here, but like many companies, they’re stuck in this evolving landscape of what’s considered credible,” said Derik Broekhoff, a senior scientist at the Stockholm Environment Institute in Seattle. Arena operators. “It is difficult to work within a system full of flaws.”
credit crisis
Carbon credits or offsets are the reduction or abatement of emissions. Companies purchase these credits, often listed on nonprofits, and use them to offset the carbon pollution associated with their business.
Companies have used voluntary offsets to market their products with labels such as “carbon neutral” to meet domestic emissions targets and support climate action projects. Critics say they could facilitate greenwashing and limit companies’ goals to reduce emissions in core business practices.
According to Architecture 2030, construction activities account for approximately 27% of worldwide carbon emissions. Common construction materials such as cement, iron, steel and aluminum account for an additional 15%.
Broekhoff does not recommend that companies rely on offsets to make marketing claims; “Many of these credits may be related to warm weather,” he said. Meanwhile, others, including Amazon, are trying to overhaul the voluntary carbon market, where prices have fallen, and make it tighter.
Climate Pledge Arena is as green as the buildings. The International Living Future Initiative (ILFI), which evaluated the arena’s emissions data and designated it a “zero carbon” building this fall, requires operators to eliminate all fossil fuels, operate efficiently and use low-carbon materials in construction.
Beyond zero-carbon label requirements, the arena’s sustainability team collects invoices from food vendors, waste haulers, utilities and artists to estimate the indirect emissions of each concert and sporting event. In the first year of operations, the building was responsible for emissions of approximately 38,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent. Arena operators have pledged to purchase offsets each year to offset all indirect emissions; This means the carbon cost of each guest’s concert t-shirt, burger and Uber ride is taken into account.
Amazon money, Colombian loans
The arena has purchased renewable energy certificates to cover all its energy needs and plans to be the main user of the local electric utility’s plan to create a new renewable energy facility.
But the construction of an arena can only be this green. According to Rob Johnson, senior vice president of sustainability and transportation for Climate Pledge Arena and the Seattle Kraken, the NHL team that plays there, the equivalent of about 37,000 metric tons of CO2 was accounted for while it was being built.
ILFI allows operators to purchase one-time carbon offsets to offset emissions from construction. As part of the naming agreement, Amazon took the lead in obtaining offsets.
The company purchased and retired carbon credits from a project in Colombia called Acapa, which is part of the Verra registry, a nonprofit that sets standards for carbon market projects. When asked, Amazon did not share the price it paid for the Acapa loan.
The approximately 144,000-acre Acapa project was first established by the United States Agency for International Development and later transferred to a number of non-profit organizations. The project aims to reduce logging by local families and encourage other economic projects with less environmental impact, such as growing coconuts, acai and cocoa, according to project documents.
Such carbon credits, called REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), have come under scrutiny from academics and journalists.
Many academic studies have found that such loans offer a very small fraction of the overall benefit claimed. A Guardian headline described these loans as “worthless”.
Barbara Haya, director of the Berkeley Carbon Trading Project, said that overall “the methodologies are not consistent with the science.”, He argued that the records were so flexible that they allowed project developers to overestimate benefits without adequate independent oversight.
Lauren Withey, who now works for the nonprofit Earthjustice, spent nearly two years in Colombia studying nature-based balances like Acapa. Designing a project that creates carbon credits is easier on paper than changing the economy of poor villages in remote rainforests, She said.
“Fundamentally, it’s very difficult to change the livelihood dynamics in these communities,” Withey said.
Meanwhile, several fledgling carbon rating agencies now offer independent modeling of carbon projects based on satellite and project data.
Lee, of ratings agency Calyx Global, said his firm believes the Acapa project delivers some emissions reductions.
“It has really reduced deforestation. Lee said of his company’s assessment: “We can’t say this for every project. “But they over-credit. It’s really common.”
Not forgiveness, but atonement
The Verra registry, which was the focus of the review, revised its methodology on Monday to ensure better quality control. Instead of project designers, the nonprofit will now determine project baselines and use remote sensing technologies to ensure emissions are reduced.
“It will start to bring more reliable results to REDD and increase confidence,” Toby Janson-Smith, Verra’s chief program development and innovation officer, said at a press conference.
Climate Pledge Arena’s Johnson said his team relied on Amazon’s carbon market expertise for offsetting purchases.
Mulligan said Amazon is now the world’s largest buyer of renewable energy. It is also the largest buyer of direct air capture credits in the world. The company co-founded the Leaf Coalition, which funds large-scale tropical forest conservation and seeks to set a stricter standard for offsets and transparency.
Asked whether it was fair to call the arena a zero-carbon building, given the uncertainty surrounding REDD projects, Mulligan said: “That’s an interesting philosophical question that we probably won’t get into.” and Amazon had done “hard work to decarbonize the actual facility, its operations, and its value chain” before purchasing the offsets.
Haya agreed that the preliminary work done to make the building as efficient as possible and create new renewable energy sources was critical.
“The most important thing is to reduce their own direct emissions, and that’s how they should be treated first,” Haya said.
Some think the voluntary carbon market has lost so much credibility that it is time to abandon marketing products as “carbon zero” or “net zero” when it comes to carbon credits.
“It’s a risk to say you’re somewhere near zero,” Broekhoff said. “View these carbon credits as atonement, not forgiveness of sins.”
This article first appeared on NBCNews.com.