Carbon credits play a vital role in financing the transition to a low-carbon society and can significantly accelerate the decarbonization efforts of companies that purchase them. In September 2023, Co-founder of Riverse Grégoire Guirauden was interviewed for MORFO 's white paper on The Future of Reforestation Carbon Credits. When mentioning the state of carbon markets and the importance of transparency, he emphasizes the need to change the perception of carbon markets, highlighting the critical role they play in financing impactful projects. While highlighting "high-quality credits" and "positive impact certificates”, Guirauden advocates for a more straightforward approach to ensure that more funding reaches projects aimed at combating climate change thanks to transparency.
Can you introduce yourself?
As a HEC graduate, I worked for 5 years in the digital transformation of large companies. In 2021, I decided to co-found Riverse to accelerate environmental transition, which is crucial to achieving a sustainable society.
What is Riverse?
Riverse is a carbon credit certification standard for European Green Techs. We enable circular economy and decarbonization projects to develop and scale their activities by monetizing their impact.
A few weeks ago, during a television interview, a journalist began by asking you, "Is the carbon market a fraud?" What are your thoughts on this matter?
It is a typical example of the counterproductive mindset around carbon markets now. Carbon markets are first and foremost a way to finance impactful projects based on their impact. If there was some bad usage in the past, we need to insist on all the great projects which get financed thanks to this mechanism.
Nowadays, this mechanism is super strictly regulated and it is almost impossible to make a fraud. Besides, all impactful projects need money to scale, and everyone agrees that the lack of financing is the number one problem to fight climate change.
Therefore, the image of the mechanism needs to change asap to be used at its full potential.
Many stakeholders argue that both buyers and sellers have reasons to lack transparency in carbon projects. Do you believe this is accurate, and if so, how can we address this issue?
By always questioning the transparency of carbon credits, we are just adding more and more layers that make the carbon credit market even more complex, heavy, and finally it is just less money that goes to the project itself, vs all the mechanisms in place to bring this supposed transparency.
There are only two main conditions for a fair and useful mechanism:
- Only finance project that are really useful to fight climate change, that need money, and can be measured and verify in a relevant way
- Buyers need to communicate wisely on their carbon credit purchase, not to confuse consumers on the real impact of their activity.
So to address this issue of transparency, I know it can be weird, but we need to oversimplify the mechanism, and accept that there is always a part of uncertainty and some ways to interpret information. Like in every measurement, verification or accounting process, there are biases, but the priority now is to finance the transition massively.
A few months ago, you authored a guide titled "10 Misconceptions About Carbon Credits." In this guide, you explained why carbon credits are essential for financing the transition to a low-carbon society. Could you elaborate on this point?
We need to multiply by 6 the investments in decarbonization solutions to reach the Paris Agreement. Multiply by 6! Any mechanism to finance these projects needs to be deployed.
Besides, at the French level:
- We lack 20-40bn€ per year to respect Paris Agreement
- Less than 0,1% of the French carbon footprint is actually offset to finance decarbonization projects
- If all the French carbon footprint was offsetted to finance decarbonization projects locally, with a price between 25 to 50€ per ton, we would basically fit this lack of financing!!!
Do companies that purchase carbon credits tend to decarbonize faster than those that don't?
Yes they do, because they do it voluntarily. Meaning these companies are in fact the most advanced in the sustainability path. Besides, it is now compulsory in France to have set a 1.5° trajectory and have reduced your impact if you want to do any kind of claims around carbon credits. Therefore, companies which buy carbon credits should be applauded, not looked at suspiciously as potential greenwashers.
An increasing number of people are advocating for the development of "high-quality credits," "nature credits," or "positive impact certificates." What are your thoughts on this emerging trend?
Everybody says that, but the average buying price of the carbon credit world-line is below 5$ per tCO2. For the moment it is 99% wishful thinking.
