Why climate targets need expert validation

*Science-based targets miss the mark* So say climate scientists Andy Reisinger, Annette Cowie, Oliver Geden and Alaa Al Khourdajie, Ph.D. in their excellent new article, just published in Nature Magazine (link in the comments). In their review of the Science Based Targets initiative and others regarding their approach to carbon credits and CDR, the authors identify 3 key concerns: 1. Basic misrepresentation of science There is no excuse for expert bodies (the UN Race to Zero campaign is cited in this context) to confuse CO2 with total greenhouse gas emissions and to misrepresent the timing when the respective emissions reach net zero in global pathways that limit warming to 1.5 °C. Solution - just don’t do it! 2. Narrow, non-transparent and arbitrary benchmarks Most initiatives that translate global emission reduction pathways into corporate targets compress these diverse pathways and interconnected assumptions into single time-bound numbers and rules. Other initiatives are less restrictive in the use of offsets and within-boundary CDR in the near term, but also often restrict eligible CDR activities. Overall, the authors are concerned that restrictive approaches to offsets and CDR withhold climate finance from much-needed energy transformation and increase future reliance on energy-intensive, expensive CDR methods such as direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS), but without generating near-term financial flows that could make this method a reality. Those subjective and contested rule-sets thus increase both the overall quantity and cost to achieve the cumulative CDR volumes that will be needed globally to limit warming and return to 1.5 °C. Solution -  Methodologies for corporate science-based targets should shift from universal narrow rule-sets to a wider but transparent menu of options, along with mandatory disclosure and justification of the strategy adopted by each company, based on its own circumstances. 3. The near-total exclusion of social science approaches to inform and justify emission targets of individual entities. Perhaps the authors’ most fundamental concern is that most allegedly science-based targets rely on modelled global or regional average rates of emission reductions to set near-term company-level targets. Almost 90% of companies with 1.5 °C-aligned Science-Based Targets are located in advanced economies and less than 1% in Africa. Most companies that currently adopt science-based targets have substantially higher than average financial, technological and human resources and capacity to deploy them, and market reach. Solution - Develop methodologies that include equity principles that can be applied at company level, along with disclosure rules that allow each company to explore and explain its unique position, with institutionalised scrutiny to avoid this exploration turning into exploitation of special circumstances.

Net Zero. What actually is it, and how does it get misused? Technically Net Zero means: “Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions must be balanced by anthropogenic removals over a specified period.” – as defined by the IPCC i.e. You must cut your emissions as much as humanly possible, and only then remove the small bit that’s left over, by actually sucking carbon out of the air and locking it away. That includes all of your emissions (Your scopes 1, 2, and 3) Scope 1 = Emissions from your own operations (e.g. trucks, boilers, company cars) Scope 2 = Emissions from energy you buy (e.g. electricity to power your buildings) Scope 3 = Emissions from your whole value chain (e.g. our suppliers, how your products are made and used, business travel, waste, etc.) N.B Most companies emit 80–95% of their carbon through Scope 3. If you're ignoring it in your net zero target, you're not doing Net Zero. So what is the right way to get to Net Zero? Mitigation hierarchy: Reduce absolute emissions by 90+% Only offset the small amount left Use carbon removals, not avoidance credits i.e. Reduce your total emissions as much as possible, then, for what you truly can’t avoid, clean up your mess by removing carbon from the atmosphere — not just paying someone else not to pollute. So what makes a “credible” Net Zero plan? Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) - Technical validation that your targets align with the 1.5°C climate goal. ISO 14068-1 - Global standard for what counts as Net Zero. GHG Protocol - The main rulebook for how to measure and report your carbon footprint. i.e. Your plan needs to be reviewed by experts (not just you), Based on science, not marketing, Transparent, with real data and progress reports So what are the common misuses of “Net Zero”? 1. Cheap offsets instead of real action. Many companies buy “avoided emissions” credits instead of reducing their own emissions. Plain English: 2. Scope carve-outs Not counting their scope 3. They’re only counting the easy stuff and ignoring the real emissions from how products are made, shipped, or used. 3. Vague targets & plans Net Zero by 2050" but no interim milestones, third-party checks, or published footprint. Big promise. No roadmap. No proof. No accountability. So here's a useful sense check: If a company says they’re “Net Zero,” ask. Are they counting everything, including Scope 3? Are they reducing emissions first, not just buying offsets? Are the offsets permanent removals, not avoidance credits? Is it all third-party verified and public? It's not to say that reducing emissions only on scope 1 or 2 is bad, it's all important. But we do need to maintain the rigour of this technical definition of Net Zero. N.B. Carbon Neutral ≠ Net Zero “Carbon Neutral” often means offsetting 100% of current emissions annually, without reducing them.

Swiss Re’s decision to abandon Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) validation lands squarely in the middle of a coordinated campaign. On 28 July 2025 Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier issued subpoenas to the SBTi and CDP, describing them as a “climate cartel.” On 8 August, Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird led 22 other Republican Attorneys General in a joint letter accusing the SBTi’s new Financial Institutions Net-Zero Standard of potential antitrust and consumer-protection violations. The escalation is deliberate and on record. The same campaign toppled the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA). In October 2022, 19 Republican Attorneys General sent civil investigative demands to six major US banks over their NZBA membership. Through 2023 and 2024, the pressure expanded through congressional hearings and further letters. Goldman Sachs left in December 2024, triggering a wave of exits, and just four weeks ago the NZBA paused activities after losing critical mass. The Net-Zero Insurance Alliance (NZIA) faced the same treatment. A May 2023 letter from 23 Attorneys General warned members of antitrust exposure. Departures followed within weeks. In April 2024 the UN relaunched the group as the Forum for Insurance Transition, stripped of its binding requirements. The pattern has been tested and proven. The SBTi was established by CDP, the UN Global Compact, the World Resources Institute and WWF to provide impartial validation of corporate climate targets. More than 5,500 companies have already used it to test the integrity of their plans. In July 2025 the SBTi released its Financial Institutions Net-Zero Standard, extending the discipline of independent validation to banks, asset managers and insurers. That new standard is precisely what Attorneys General are now attacking. Swiss Re’s announcement on 3 September 2025 that it will “pursue science-based targets” without SBTi validation must be read against this backdrop. It is a calculated retreat designed to avoid becoming a political target. A serious commitment to science-based targets requires standing behind independent validation, not substituting it with internal declarations. Reinsurers understand systemic risk better than most. Failing to defend credibility when climate disruption threatens every actuarial model speaks volumes. What is at stake is the legitimacy of science-based climate action itself. Independent validation provides comparability, trust and accountability. Remove that foundation and climate targets become marketing claims, investors lose clarity, and capital flows towards transition slow. The way forward is clear: defend the role of independent verifiers and legislate safe-harbour protections so methodologies cannot be undermined through spurious antitrust claims. Without this, ambition will continue to be hollowed out by fear. #ClimateAction #Insurance #SBTi #NetZero #Accountability