Itâs reductive and incorrect to say this means all of these kinds of credits are âjunkâ or âworthlessâ, but it is true that there is a real additionality challenge for credits from renewables projects which means that buyers of those kinds of credits might not be meaningfully contributing to the project taking place.
There can be lots of reasons why renewables projects might go ahead anyway on the basis that they receive incentives from other places â grants, investments, local regulations and so on. Itâs also important to note that the issue raised by the ICVCM is not that the projects arenât achieving what they say they are â itâs that itâs hard to prove based off the credit-issuing methodologies that the cash from the sale of carbon credits is making a meaningful difference to the financial viability of these projects. So when buying a renewable energy carbon credit, itâs harder to argue (based on the methodology alone) that the buyer has made a meaningful contribution to the renewable project taking place â because itâs hard to prove that it wouldnât have happened without them.
In some ways, this decision is a necessary and positive consequence of the success of renewables in recent years â carbon credits for renewables 15 years ago were more additional than they are today, because there was less investment, less regulation and most economies globally were heavily fossil-fuel dominated. But as green investment has grown and capacity has skyrocketed, itâs become ever easier, cheaper, and more heavily-incentivised to install renewables â leaving less need for carbon credit financing to get these projects built, and making carbon credit financing for renewables less additional.