GROUNDED IN CLIMATE SCIENCE?

The report evaluates the Greenhouse Gas Protocol's Land Sector and Removals Standard (LSRS), a framework for corporate accounting of land-based emissions and carbon removals. While praising the mandate for separate accounting of emissions and removals, the authors identify critical weaknesses: the voluntary nature of removals reporting and a provision that may allow the SBTi's FLAG Guidance—which permits netting—to take precedence. The analysis also criticizes the inclusion of enhanced oil and gas recovery, the lack of mandatory measurement-based quantification, and loopholes in 'physical traceability' via non-proportional mass balance. The report concludes with recommendations to make removals reporting mandatory, exclude fossil fuel recovery, and assert the LSRS's primacy over other target-setting frameworks.

• The LSRS contains a structural contradiction where it recognizes the importance of removals for net zero, yet reporting on these removals remains voluntary rather than mandatory.
• There is a risk that the SBTi’s Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance (FLAG Guidance) could override the LSRS's stricter requirement for separate emission and removal targets, potentially allowing companies to use 'net' targets to mask ongoing emissions.
• The standard is criticized for allowing both carbon removals and captured CO2 to be used for enhanced oil and gas recovery, which the authors argue perpetuates fossil fuel extraction.
• The LSRS's approach to 'physical traceability' is compromised by allowing non-proportional attribution in mass balance systems, which the authors claim breaks the physical link between emissions data and the actual land asset.
• The framework for quantification is deemed insufficient because it does not require companies to prioritize measurement-based approaches over models, nor does it prescribe specific open-source or verifiable model criteria.
• The standard's treatment of land carbon leakage is described as convoluted, as it splits calculations between life-cycle GHG emissions and separate reporting, and only requires quantification for 'high risk' activities.

APA

Faecks, B., Hernández, M. R., Crook, J., & De Simone, F. (n.d.). GROUNDED IN CLIMATE SCIENCE? Carbon Market Watch. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/CMW_2026_LSRS-final.pdf

Chicago

Faecks, Benja, Marlène Ramón Hernández, Jonathan Crook, and Fabiola De Simone. GROUNDED IN CLIMATE SCIENCE? Carbon Market Watch, n.d. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/CMW_2026_LSRS-final.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Faecks |first1=Benja |last2=Hernández |first2=Marlène Ramón |last3=Crook |first3=Jonathan |last4=De Simone |first4=Fabiola |title=GROUNDED IN CLIMATE SCIENCE? |publisher=Carbon Market Watch |url=https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/CMW_2026_LSRS-final.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{faecksndgrounded, author = {Faecks, Benja and Hernández, Marlène Ramón and Crook, Jonathan and De Simone, Fabiola}, title = {{GROUNDED IN CLIMATE SCIENCE?}}, institution = {Carbon Market Watch}, url = {https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/CMW_2026_LSRS-final.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }