For many companies, the journey to net zero starts by aligning with two of the most influential organizations in sustainability. To measure and report emissions, businesses often turn to guidelines from the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol. When they’re ready to set goals, it’s the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) they seek help from.

These dominant standards for corporate climate strategy are now being challenged. Just this year, at least six new approaches to reporting and target-setting have been launched or piloted. This rush of alternative methods raises important questions about whether it will help or hinder progress to global net zero. It also reflects frustration with the slow pace of reform at the incumbent standard-setters.

“The original reporting frameworks were created mostly by NGOs as they were making the case for what to account for, in the spirit of what gets measured gets managed,” noted one consultant with experience in non-profits and government, who asked not to be named because they work with standard setters. 

Now we’ve moved from “what” to “how,” the consultant added. “Many of the new types of behavior — purchasing, investment decisions — necessary for economy-wide decarbonization do not show up cleanly in current reporting frameworks. There is a need for new ways to measure things.”

Alternative approaches

Here are some of the more notable new approaches, listed by launch date:

• A code of practice from the Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative that allows companies to use carbon credits to address Scope 3 emissions.
• The Exponential Roadmap Initiative’s Climate Solutions Framework, which measures the climate benefit of low-carbon products relative to market averages.
• Spheres of Influence, which gives credit to work on product development, climate finance and policy engagement. The approach is a joint project between the consultancy Futerra and Oxford Net Zero.
• Reporting and target-setting rules from the Task Force for Corporate Action Transparency that extend the scope of the GHG Protocol.
• New accounting methodologies for product-level emissions from Carbon Measures, a group with backers from heavy industry and finance.

That’s just the ones born this year — there are others that predate 2025 but are still in early development. The AIM Platform, for instance, launched in 2023 and is now in pilot tests with Patagonia, Schneider Electric and others. The platform helps companies target and take credit for investments in supply-chain decarbonization.

Extending the current system

One theme that unites several of the new approaches is the freedom to use market-based mechanisms to meet climate goals. 

That includes carbon credits, which current SBTi rules say can only be used to nullify residual emissions at the end of a company’s net-zero journey. Guidelines from the Task Force for Corporate Action Transparency, for instance, detail how to report emissions reductions from credits alongside other mitigation efforts. 

Credits generated from value-chain investments are another focus. Patagonia, for example, hopes to use the AIM Platform’s methodology to claim credits, sometimes known as “insets,” that it will generate by funding the replacement of fossil-fueled boilers used by fabric suppliers.

Other frameworks, particularly Spheres of Influence, seek to acknowledge the impact of climate action that isn’t directly tied to a company’s emissions, such as lobbying for climate legislation. 

The approach resonates with Environmental Defense Fund Vice President for Net Zero Ambition and Action Elizabeth Sturken, who advocates for identifying the overlap between a company’s major emission sources and its opportunities to act. 

“Let’s lean in there and go big,” she said. “And that might not even be in their operations or supply chain. It might be in public policy, right?” 

Bringing in others

Another common focus is groups of companies that aren’t yet participating at scale in emissions reporting and target-setting.

The launch members of Carbon Measures, for instance, include several companies from hard-to-abate sectors: three from oil and gas (ExxonMobil, Adnoc and EQT), as well as a steel manufacturer (Nucor) and a metals and mining business (Vale). None of those five have set targets with SBTi. In fact, SBTi is not currently accepting submissions from oil and gas companies, after work with the industry on an emissions-reduction framework for the sector stalled.

Startups are also often excluded, but for very different reasons. SBTi rules prioritize absolute emissions reductions, but startups by definition need to grow market share, which almost always involves increasing emissions. The Climate Solutions Framework allows fledgling companies with low-carbon products to set targets by measuring their emissions against industry averages. This recognizes companies that lower emissions for a product category, even if the businesses’ own emissions increase.

What’s driving the action

The GHG Protocol’s first corporate guidelines were published in 2001. The SBTi is celebrating its 10th birthday this year. Experts who spoke with Trellis noted the positive impacts both have had. They also said the organizations’ standards are in need of reform. And while both the SBTi and the GHG Protocol are revising their standards, the pace of change has been too slow for some. 

“I fully support VCMI’s new code and I think SBTi could be in trouble if it doesn’t broaden its approach,” said a sustainability leader at a global strategy consulting firm, who also asked to remain anonymous to protect relationships with standard-setters. “Residual emissions are going to exist, and we desperately need to scale high-quality removal solutions.”

Supply-chain decarbonization is another area in need of updates. It’s “very scary” for large publicly traded companies to commit to time-consuming and costly projects without knowing how to claim the benefits, said Kim Drenner, head of environmental impact at Patagonia, one of the companies piloting the AIM Platform. 

“I understand why people are trying to bring these solutions forward,” she added. “The Greenhouse Gas Protocol needs to move a bit faster.”

The likely outcomes

Backers of most of the new approaches favor an evolution of existing standards. The AIM Platform and the Task Force for Corporate Action Transparency, for instance, are collaborating with the GHG Protocol and the SBTi and hope future versions of those organization’s standards incorporate their innovations. 

That may be less true for Carbon Measures. Amy Brachio, the initiative’s CEO, emphasized the need to include multiple stakeholders in the organization’s work to create a new accounting standard for emissions. But Carbon Measure’s approach draws inspiration from E-liabilities, an emissions accounting approach that rejects the concept of Scope 3. 

The focus instead is on individual companies measuring their direct emissions and allocating a portion to customers — an approach so fundamentally different to existing methods that were it to gain traction it might create a schism in emissions reporting and target-setting. The risk then is that stakeholders — investors, policymakers, consumers and other groups — would be left with a patchwork of standards that complicates policy and undermines attempts to hold companies accountable.

“This will get messier before it gets cleaned up,” said the consultant with non-profit experience.

The post Why 2025 has seen a flood of new ways to count carbon appeared first on Trellis.

Projects that prevent methane from entering the atmosphere are emerging as one of the fastest growing areas of carbon markets, with a surge in the number of credits being issued and interest from high-profile buyers such as Google and Netflix.

The attention is driven in part by the urgent need to capture methane, a potent greenhouse gas that the IPCC estimates is responsible for roughly a third of the global warming observed over the past century. 

Methane is also an attractive focus for carbon credit funding. It leaks from sources that are relatively easy to tackle provided the funding is there, including landfills, orphaned oil wells and disused mines. And compared with some other credit mechanisms, such as forest protection, project developers face a simpler task when it comes to estimating the climate benefits of their work.

Propelled by these factors and corporate demand, annual issuances of credits from methane projects have tripled to more than 15 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent since 2019, according to Allied Offsets, a carbon markets data firm. 

Annual issuances of methane credits

Prominent deals include a purchase by Google of credits from a project that capture methane from a landfill in Cuiabá, Brazil, and enterprise software company Workday’s deal with Tradewater, a project developer that caps orphaned oil and gas wells. Netflix retired around 300,000 methane credits annually between 2022 and 2024, roughly 30 percent of the company’s total, according to the streaming giant’s sustainability reports.

The surge in interest is sparking other initiatives. Last month, for example, Vaulted Deep, a project developer that buries organic waste underground, said it would partner with Google and Isometric, a carbon credit registry, to develop methods for estimating methane emissions from organic waste.

The process is not well understood, in part because the waste can contain many substances. Putting a figure on it could boost the value of Vaulted’s credits, which at present are based on the quantity of carbon the company locks away in underground storage. This ignores the methane that would be released if the waste were spread on land or sent to landfill, as well as other impacts.

“Methane is a precursor to ozone, and ground-level ozone aggravates asthma,” said Bryan Epps, Vaulted’s head of commercialization. “It reduces crop yields, damages ecosystems and has all kinds of really significant negative effects.”

The range of methodologies open to project developers will also increase, with Isometric announcing this week that it will develop a new protocol for destruction of methane from landfills. “We’ve had really strong interest from major carbon removal buyers such as Google in bringing our scientific rigor and tech-enabled crediting into this important area,” said Lukas May, the company’s chief commercial officer. 

Quality concerns

Due diligence on methane projects can feel relatively straightforward, in part because the projects are often clearly “additional” — meaning that the capture of the methane would not take place without the funding from credit sales. But independent experts caution against assuming that all methane projects are high quality. Calyx Global, a carbon credit rating agency, shared data with Trellis showing that methane projects assessed by the company are over-represented in high ratings, but many low-quality projects in that class exist nonetheless.

Quality ratings from Calyx Global

One flag for buyers to watch for is an on-off pattern in credit issuances. Last year, CarbonPlan, a nonprofit that studies climate solutions, looked at 14 landfill projects and questioned whether six were genuinely additional. The researchers found that the six stopped issuing credits for years at a time, but continued to operate methane capture equipment during those periods. 

That the equipment ran continuously was good for the planet, the CarbonPlan team noted. “But offsets must be used to spur new climate action — not just reward existing actions.” 

The post What buyers need to know about the surge of interest in methane credits appeared first on Trellis.

As readers of our favorite sustainability newsletter —  Trellis Briefing — know well, staying current in this fast-changing field isn’t enough. The most successful professionals stay ahead. That means tracking each new regulation and all emerging tech, not to mention shifts in consumer demand and a crisis that changes daily.

Trellis Briefing offers a unique blend of management advice, regulatory updates, corporate case studies and more makes it a must read for anyone in the industry.

But we’re the first to acknowledge that there are more than a few other newsletters in our sector that we like — and read.

Whether you skim these “subscribes” as you sip your morning coffee or save them for a leisurely weekend scroll, they will keep you plugged into both what is and what’s next. 

If you want clean energy news that cuts to the chase …

Axios Energy takes the ever-changing world of sustainability, from policy moves to corporate shifts, and breaks it all down into bite-size, inbox friendly reports. From renewables to grid tech, Axios Energy is a must for anyone tracking the business of decarbonization. As you peruse their website, you’ll happily note that each read takes no more than three minutes. That’s shorter than the time it takes to brew a cup of joe.

If you want your sustainability news served with a side of global depth and data …

Few sustainability news outlets combine breadth and rigor like Bloomberg Green. From deep dives into the financial side of climate action to people-first stories of adaptation and innovation, its reporting highlights how environmental action is reshaping the economy, politics and culture worldwide. You might find your next sustainability breakthrough within its (digital) pages. 

If you want to follow the money …

Perfect for investors and founders, Climate Tech VC has proven itself a global voice in the business of sustainability. The weekly newsletter tracks deals, trends and venture movement across the industry, pairing data with insight to create the perfect window into where climate capital is flowing.

If you want to know what’s really happening in Washington …

While policies might not always make for attention-grabbing headlines, we’re never ones to discount the importance of staying informed. We believe policy reporting can and should be enjoyable, which is why Power Switch from Politico is on our list. The newsletter delivers sharp, inside-the-Beltway reporting on the political forces shaping today and tomorrow’s environmental scene. 

If you want your climate journalism to replace your daily doomscroll …

Heatmap does what few sustainability publications do: makes its readers laugh. It has carved a niche in the sector that is both entertaining and informative, covering everything from the cultural impact of sustainability to the politics of electrification. The newsletter delivers punchy climate coverage with bright colors, savvy pop culture references and jokes aplenty.

If you want energy media that connects the dots …

Few outlets capture the pulse of clean energy, renewables and the climate revolution like Canary Media. This nonprofit newsroom provides a clear-eyed look at decarbonization — from solar wind to electrification — while explaining what works, what doesn’t and why. The newsletter is committed to bringing solutions to a sector full of questions, connecting policy to technology and technology to people. 

If you want clarity in a feed full of headlines …

Carbon Brief offers its readers a daily breakdown of the biggest stories in sustainability while maintaining a voice that’s clear and factual. If you’re looking for crisp, data-driven stories that prioritize comprehension over haste, you’re in the right place. With charts that cut through the noise, data that doesn’t distort and analysis that connects policy and science, the newsletter delivers evidence-based journalism that keeps readers thoroughly informed without overwhelming them.

If you want to hear unique individual voices …

Climate activist legend Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org, brings decades of environmental insight to his Substack, The Crucial Years. With nearly 100,000 subscribers, it reflects on grassroots campaigns, policy battles and big-picture climate trends. Other notable climate apostles: Michael Thomas, whose newsletter Distilled boasts 16,000 subscribers, and Emily Atkin, whose 145,000-subscriber-strong HEATED was termed “impassioned [and] deeply reported” by New York Magazine.

The post 10 (other) newsletters to make your scroll more sustainable appeared first on Trellis.

While there are many personal impacts of climate change, new data shows people are most concerned about one: their health.

Globally, 45 percent of people believe climate change will negatively affect their personal health in the next five years, making health a potential rallying point for climate action, according to Trellis data partner GlobeScan. Additionally, 41 percent expect climate change to worsen their personal safety and well-being, while 40 percent foresee a decline in their emotional and psychological state, highlighting the deep and multifaceted anxieties people associate with climate disruption.

Financial vulnerability is also a concern, although less so than physical or emotional impacts, with 37 percent of respondents believing their financial situation will deteriorate due to climate change. This reinforces the tension between recognizing climate risks and hesitating to make financial sacrifices to address them. 

What this means

Health concerns are emerging as a strong personal link to climate change and a major opportunity to drive action. People are more worried about the effects of climate change on their health and well-being than on their finances, making health a powerful and universal motivator. Framing climate change as a public health issue shifts the conversation from distant environmental threats to immediate personal impacts such as cleaner air, safer water and reduced risk of disease. Highlighting these tangible benefits can make climate action more relatable and widely supported, helping to engage people beyond traditional environmental audiences.

Based on GlobeScan’s Societal Shift project, which surveyed nearly 32,000 people in 33 countries in July and August 2025.

The post Nearly 50 percent of people expect climate change to harm their health within 5 years appeared first on Trellis.

Rebecca White grew up in West Texas cotton country, so she understands firsthand how climate stresses and volatile markets threaten the crop. Now, as chief product officer of the agtech startup Avalo, she hopes to help future-proof cotton from seed to field.

Avalo uses machine learning to accelerate what Gregor Mendel once did with peas. Its AI analyzes plant genomes and recommends which plants to crossbreed for desired fiber traits, sometimes even multiple qualities at once. In the process, Avalo says it enhances genetic diversity and helps farmers generate value through low-chemical, regenerative practices.

The pitch to fashion brands and mills: fibers tailored for softness, breathability, dye-readiness and other properties. “When we look at genetics for our seeds, we’re talking to spinners, millers and brands about what is important in the fiber characteristics for them,” White said.

Avalo’s momentum includes hiring Tricia Carey as chief commercial officer in April, a signal of ambitions to commercialize and connect with brands. The veteran of Lenzing, Gap and Levi’s earned industry respect trying to save Renewcell, the Swedish textile recycler reborn as Circulose after its bankruptcy.

White expressed hope for helping farmers stressed by a variety of factors, including the decline of cotton in fashion, capricious weather patterns worsened by climate change and volatile tariff policies. “If we’re not taking care of farmers, then they’re not going to farm anymore,” she said.

Competitors

Avalo raised $11 million in a Series A round in March, part of about $15 million total raised to date. (It also has support from Coca-Cola Ventures for sugar cane genetics.) The amount is modest next to peers in the biotech-for-ag space:

• Indigo Ag (Boston) has raised roughly $1.5 billion, including a large 2023 round with Google Ventures participation, to track and monetize regenerative agriculture practices for multiple crops.
• Puna Bio (Buenos Aires and San Francisco) makes microbial seed coatings from extremophile organisms to boost yields. Its $25.7 million in funding includes support from the Gates Foundation.
• Galy (Boston) cultures cotton and other fibers in bioreactors, backed by $65.9 million in funding, including a Series B raise from Breakthrough Energy Ventures in 2024.

White says Avalo’s focus on using genetics to help farmers maximize yields and build soil health can ultimately complement other technologies such as those of Indigo Ag and Puna Bio.

“It’s great that there are those kinds of initiatives, but it’s still high risk,” said Margaret Bishop, an assistant professor at the New School in New York City. “You’ve got to have the investors and build out the supply chain.”

In the field

Avalo aims to enable sustainable farming practices already familiar to growers in arid regions around Lubbock. Delivering improved fiber quality with plant strains suited to local conditions could help farmers earn more for lower-emission cotton, while also assisting mills and brands to cut Scope 3 supply-chain emissions.

Unlike traditional ag models that sell seeds plus chemical inputs, Avalo’s team wants to work toward a future with fewer herbicides and pesticides, developing varieties with built-in resistance.

Although its seeds start in a lab, Avalo relies on open-air field trials, where bees pollinate plants. “We’re really trying to bring genetic diversity back into the fold, because traditional breeding programs tend to weed diversity out in an attempt to keep things simple and more streamlined,” said Avalo Chief Marketing Officer Nick Schwanz.

The company taps into public seed banks and private collections to study more than 500 cotton varieties. These include both wild and “feral” types, i.e. onetime commercial strains that naturalized over decades.

“The oldest one that we have is from the 1920s,” White said. “We put them all together in various different locations, and we see how they do in those different environments, and that helps us interpret the underlying genetic information.”

Natural and synthetic pressures

In fashion, cotton and polyester have traded places in dominance over the past 60 years. Polyester and other fossil-based synthetics now make up about 59 percent of the global fiber market, while cotton accounts for roughly 19 percent, according to the Textile Exchange 2025 Materials Market Report.

Virgin synthetics generally carry a higher greenhouse-gas footprint, but cotton’s cultivation uses more land and water. Cotton-growing regions in the U.S., India, Brazil and Pakistan face future uncertainty from increased droughts, rains and flooding.

Cotton uses as much as 11 percent of the world’s pesticides, and chemical weed control remains common, harming soil microbomes.

Brand pressure and regenerative shifts

Sustainability advocates argue that retailers and brands must rethink how they work with farmers, supporting transitions to regenerative and climate-resilient cotton. The Sustainable Cotton Challenge led by Textile Exchange has gathered 138 brands, from Levi Strauss to Kering, committed to sourcing certified environmentally responsible cotton by the end of 2025. Yet only about 22 percent of participating brands met that goal by the end of 2024.

Avalo positions itself as the bridge between regenerative farming and brands’ sustainability ambitions, aiming to give both sides a shared language and measurable results.

“Farmers know what happens to their cotton up to the point where it leaves the warehouse,” White said. “They produce it, they harvest it. It goes to a gin, it gets bailed, and then it goes to the warehouse, and then it’s sort of off in the ether for them.”

The opposite is true for the brands, who only tend to see the cotton after it lands at the spinner. “The brands are closer together in a perspective of sustainability with farmers than they think that they are,” she added. “The more that we can bring that understanding together, I think the more successful programs like ours will be.”

“It’s super early to know how much that’s going to speed up the development of new seeds, but really exciting if they can,” said Debra Guo, the cotton and crops lead at the Textile Exchange.

The post Avalo using AI to future-proof cotton appeared first on Trellis.