Sven Focken-Kremer, Senior Manager Public Affairs & Strategic Communication, Photo: myclimate
At the start of the year, CDRterra published a widely acclaimed study involving interdisciplinary collaboration between over 100 researchers. It can be summarised roughly as follows: even with a dream climate policy – an ideal state from which we are currently far removed – residual emissions will remain in the future. They cannot be completely avoided for technical, economic or social reasons, no matter how ‘technology-neutral’ our approach may be. Unfortunately, there is more bad news: the expected residual emissions will be higher than previously assumed.
But there is also some good news: the role of CO₂ sinks has been underestimated until now. These sinks are specifically referred to as ‘nature-based solutions’. Examples include afforestation, agroforestry and peatland restoration. The CO₂ sinks rated highest in the study are effective and proven. Compared to the costs of failing to meet the climate target, they are also more cost-effective. According to the study, these sinks need a dramatic boost in development, which, however, must be funded.
This is where the consensus ends, if not before. Instead of making life easier for those who want to take action, there is debate over the ‘how’, and supporting framework legislation is not being put in place.
In 2025, the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Protection emphasised that the voluntary carbon market can play a key role in closing the global climate finance gap. So there are supporters with deep pockets who are clearly also willing to pay.
In a recent position paper addressed to the German government, the charitable foundation Alliance for Development and Climate concludes that there is finally a need for a political framework “for the use of international emission credits that recognises corporate engagement within holistic climate protection strategies featuring a decarbonisation pathway.” At present, the most fundamental elements are lacking, namely a ‘legally secure framework for action and political recognition’, meaning that demand on the part of those wishing to engage cannot be met by the supply.
Or simply put: those who want to (companies) are currently not connecting sufficiently with those who can (project developers).
How can the obvious be so difficult? Japan shows how it can be done: the J-Credit Scheme enables corporate decarbonisation and voluntary participation in international climate protection projects. Emission credits are recognised by the state and integrated into national instruments.
The numerous signatories of the position paper by the Alliance for Development and Climate Foundation, which includes myclimate, are calling for voluntary climate protection to be given a legally secure framework for action and political recognition. There is even talk of a legal ‘safe harbour’ for companies to steer investment towards high-quality certificates and significantly accelerate private climate finance.
Local companies would probably be satisfied with a ‘safe harbour’ at a lower level. This is because when companies currently channel money into climate protection, they contact the legal department first rather than the project developers. Often, the climate activists themselves are the biggest critics. This is less about well-founded – and therefore intrinsically important – criticism and more about being right. Even projects rated as excellent in terms of quality are criticised because even better results could be achieved using a different method. An example: a forestry project in Brandenburg is criticised by an organisation because it relies on human reforestation rather than natural forest development. Yet both approaches deliver good results.
Or companies have to defend their financing for climate protection. Ironically, it is not uncommon for the plaintiffs to highlight the value and necessity of the projects being financed. But the fact that this particular company is also communicating its commitment: that must be taken to court. It is the projects and the companies’ commitment that end up falling by the wayside. This means that private capital cannot be mobilised to a sufficient extent for climate protection. The current debate, even amongst climate activists, all too often lacks a sense of proportion and a focus on what really matters.
Ironically, it is precisely those who do nothing who benefit from this. Anyone who does not initiate or provide financing for a project can obviously sit back and do nothing. That must change. Let’s make it difficult for the do-nothings. Or at least make it easier for those who are committed. We must start by taking the first step. Climate change doesn’t care about discussions; it cares about concrete projects and measures.
Conclusion: We know the problem and the solution. Both internationally and nationally, we need supportive political frameworks.
And another call for unity, and to all those who, with the goal of ‘climate protection’, should actually be pulling in the same direction: even if we sometimes disagree on the ‘how’, there should be consensus on high-quality measures rather than criticism of the ‘even better way’. Broad support for the aforementioned position paper is a start.
