Carbon Reduction: What Evidence Should Support a Claim that Emissions Have Been Reduced?

When I hear that carbon emissions have been reduced, the first thing I wonder is: compared with what? There is something to check between an explanation that a good technology was used and evidence showing how much actually changed. Today, let’s open Chapters 2 and 7 of Technology and Solutions for Demonstrating Carbon Reduction together. I’d like to talk about what evidence carbon-reduction technologies should leave in the field.

A distinction to make first as you read the book

As you read about a technology, it may help to write down three separate statements: what was done, what was observed, and what is being claimed as a result. Put them in the same sentence, and participation can easily look like an emissions reduction outcome. Keeping them separate makes it easier to see what has already been established and what still needs investigation. Use the same approach when a reduction figure changes. To compare before and after properly, you need to know whether actual operations changed or whether the data and calculation method improved.

In a transition plan, it is important to disclose separately the scope and timeline for reducing the organization’s own emissions and the criteria for addressing residual emissions. If credits are used, specify their intended use, the uses and quality requirements allowed by the applicable target or claims framework, and the amount used. Without this information, it is difficult to assess whether a commitment can be carried out and where responsibility lies.

MRV is a system that connects Measurement, Reporting, and Verification. It attaches calculation methods and conditions of application to results estimated from observations and activity records, then checks the claim against established criteria. Checks used for internal management have different purposes and requirements from verification required for external submission. First decide who will use the results and for what decision; then you can design the necessary evidence and verification process.

The basic principle is to make claims only within the scope supported by the evidence. Activity records show whether someone took part; suitable observations explain changes under particular conditions. A study design that addresses confounding is needed to establish a technology’s causal effect, and further evidence covering the relevant scope is needed to generalize findings to other farms. Independent review tests the evidence, but it cannot supply a missing control group or make a sample representative.

Verification (V) is the assessment of a greenhouse gas claim and its supporting evidence against established criteria. ISO 14064-3:2019 can be used for first-, second-, and third-party verification and validation. So we should neither dismiss all verification just because it was conducted internally, nor assume independence just because an external organization took part. Check the verifier’s competence and impartiality, working relationships, and applicable requirements.

In practice, first decide who will use the results and what type of verification is needed, then document who is authorized to prepare, review, and approve them. A record confirming an in-house calculation can support internal quality management, but should not be described as independent third-party verification. If external assurance is needed, separately meet the verifier qualifications and conflict-of-interest requirements set by the relevant scheme.

What to look for in the field

Imagine two farms that changed their feed. One kept purchase receipts; the other also recorded the feeding period and animal-rearing conditions. Both records have value. A receipt documents a purchase, while feeding records help show how the feed was actually used. Neither record on its own can establish the size of the emissions reduction.

First-party verification is performed by the party responsible for the claim; second-party verification is performed by an interested party, such as a buyer; and third-party verification is performed by an independent party. Do not confuse these categories with whether the work was outsourced. A counterparty’s or consulting firm’s title alone does not establish that it qualifies as a third party.

Before signing a contract, agree on the claim, period, boundaries, and applicable criteria; the assurance level and materiality; access to source data; conflict-of-interest management; and how the deliverables may be used. Where needed, also check the organization’s accreditation or registration scope. Read a verification opinion within that scope, and do not expand it into a blanket certification of the entire company, product performance, or future emissions reductions.

Quantifying reductions requires both measurement traceability and traceability of the calculations. Link measurements to a documented calibration chain and uncertainty, and trace activity data, emission factors, and models through their sources, versions, and conditions of application to the final result. Not every reduction figure comes from direct measurement alone. Along with checking whether calculations can be reproduced, reviewers should confirm that the data and methods used are appropriate for the claim.

Questions to ask in an investment review

In an investment review, it helps to look separately at the number of participating farms and the verified emissions reductions. An increase in customers describes business adoption; appropriate comparisons and calculations describe impact. Keeping those questions distinct also clarifies what the next investment should help verify.

Here is the key insight: evidence has levels, and each level sets limits on what you can say. Evidence at a lower level is not worthless. Activity records prove participation, which is sufficient for many purposes. The problem is using lower-level evidence to make a higher-level claim.

When you receive a document making an emissions reduction claim—such as research findings, a corporate disclosure, policy materials, or a proposal—check what level of evidence supports the claim and whether its wording goes beyond that level.

So, like any other investment, MRV costs should be assessed against the quality needed and the value they bring to decision-making. If the verifiable scope is narrow, limit the claim. If the cost of additional data exceeds the improvement it would bring to a decision, adjust the project design or the level of the claim. Spending money on verification does not, by itself, justify the cost.

A question to leave with before closing the book

Believing in a technology’s potential and checking the evidence for it can go hand in hand. Define what you can explain now, and note what information you would need to make a stronger claim. I hope you will look for that boundary as you read the book.

About the author

Bongjun Lee graduated from the Graduate School of Management of Technology (MOT) at Sogang University. He spent seven years at Infitron Co., Ltd. and 20 years at Honeywell, working for a total of 27 years in gas measurement in service engineering, technical sales, and channel management. He is now the founder of AI Safety Korea Co., Ltd., where he is researching livestock methane monitoring and measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems using sensors, AI, and data analytics.