Carbon Measures’ position on Scope 3, greenwashing and the need to accelerate emissions reductions. Let’s fact-check some of the misconceptions.

Misconception: As the conversation around carbon accounting evolves, one misconception raised deserves a clear and straightforward answer: Does developing a new approach to product-level carbon accounting risk delaying climate action?

FACT CHECK ✓  The answer is no. In fact, the purpose of Carbon Measures’ work is precisely the opposite: to accelerate progress by turning carbon data into economic signals that encourage the production, purchase and investment in lower-carbon solutions.

The challenge: turning data into emissions reductions

Despite significant progress in climate reporting and disclosure, global emissions continue to rise. Corporate disclosure has increased transparency and helped companies understand emissions and climate-related risks. Now we need complementary solutions that can truly drive significant and sustainable emissions reductions.

We are also entering a new window of opportunity: carbon data is beginning to serve purposes beyond disclosure, informing procurement, investment, trade and regulation. This shift creates the potential for markets and policies to reward lower-carbon products and investments, but it will only work if decision-makers have access to granular, comparable and verifiable product-level data to differentiate higher- and lower-carbon products. The EU’s new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) guidance and the Carbon Accounting Landscape Review both point to this growing need.

Carbon Measures’ goal: reducing emissions

Our ultimate objective is to reduce emissions, and we recognize that this is a complex challenge that requires multiple solutions and pathways.

The solution Carbon Measures advocates for is mandatory product-level carbon intensity regulations that create durable demand for lower-carbon products in hard-to-abate sectors, with granular and comparable product-level carbon accounting as a means to that end.

• Why hard-to-abate sectors? We are laser-focused on where we can have the greatest impact: a limited set of higher-emitting product categories where better data and the right policy incentives can drive meaningful emissions reductions.
• Why do we think it can work? Product-level regulation is not a new concept and has worked in other contexts. Seat belt requirements established a clear safety standard across the automotive market. Every automaker knew the standard it had to meet, but companies still competed on how they designed and built safer, better vehicles. Today, we take that basic safety requirement for granted. The same principle has also worked in complex global markets. The IMO 2020 global sulfur cap established a clear, measurable limit on the sulfur content of fuel oil used by ships. The standard applied across the industry, allowing companies to innovate in how they complied. Shipping companies adapted, fuel suppliers innovated, and the global market shifted to meet the new standard. In addition, organizations such as Resources for the Future are already examining how product carbon intensity standards can reduce emissions while keeping costs low.

What does this mean for Scope 3?

And what about greenwashing?

And what about passing the responsibility to the consumer?

And what about ecosystem fragmentation?