iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 11/06/2026

This was my fast reaction. More to say. And next week an ISO net zero standard draft is coming out too. (Disclaimer: I was part of an SBTi expert working group but completely speak in my own capacity.)

000

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 11/06/2026

That companies have to motivate *why* they are not taking financial responsibility for ongoing emissions, is really excellent.

100

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 11/06/2026

And the SBTi is shifting away from crude binary target fulfillment, targets are set on a "best effort", and if a company does all they can, they can still be deemed compliant even if they miss the targets. They don't go the whole way on this though and call targets conditional.

100

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 11/06/2026

I really like that transition plans are now a must. That is where companies can be clear about what emissions they control themselves and what depends on outside change, and what they do about it.

100

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 11/06/2026

For carbon removal it is an *improvement from earlier drafts* of the 2.0 version. For example it again says that long-lived emissions need long-lived removals. But there is no drastic change that drives near-term CDR demand.

110

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 11/06/2026

🚨 SBTi 2.0 is out. Importantly, rules on claims and target fulfillment are not in the standard, but pushed to future publications. That means much is still to be discussed, and topics like operational net zero are still live.

100

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 04/06/2026

Read the paper here: milkywire.com/build-the-wo... I have been working on this for a long time now and am deeply interested in feedback. Does this hold for you? What does it miss? Is it useful?

milkywire.com

Milkywire | Build the world your net zero targets assumes

Market leading carbon removal, climate, and nature solutions.

011

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 04/06/2026

Can a company keep a net zero target when large parts of it are outside its control? We think they can, and should, but only if the target becomes a commitment to act on the system, not just account for emissions.

111

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 04/06/2026

In the paper we also lay out a mapping framework for companies to determine where emissions fall on an agency and economic feasibility map, and which actions align with which emissions.

110

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 04/06/2026

That means policy advocacy, supplier engagement, financing climate solutions, supporting carbon removal, and other system-changing actions are not side activities but flow from the target itself.

221

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 04/06/2026

The first part is the company’s unconditional target. The second part is conditional on the wider system changing. But that does not make it optional, instead, it creates an obligation to help build the world the target assumes.

111

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 04/06/2026

The paper argues that companies should split their net zero targets into two parts: - what they can deliver under existing conditions, and - what depends on policy, infrastructure, technology, markets, suppliers, and customers changing around them.

111

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 04/06/2026

Corporate net zero is not a target in the ordinary sense. It is a vision with a target component and an obligation to act to make the vision possible, even when those actions don't show up in GHG inventories. That is the core argument of a new paper I have written with Claire Wigg launching today.

113

Reposted by Robert Höglund

Roger Aines @rogeraines.bsky.social · 25/03/2026

Robert Hoglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social is the voice of rationality for carbon dioxide removal. He makes the case for CDR needing a narrative shift away from speed and scale, toward prove and learn. Today the vital need is to trust and understand CDR. carboncurve.substack.com/p/why-carbon...

carboncurve.substack.com

Why carbon removal needs a new story

Listen now | A conversation with Robert Hoglund on reframing CDR as a real mitigation solution, the aviation and shipping blind spot, and what success looks like in the prove and learn era

053

Reposted by Robert Höglund

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 16/03/2026

NEW ARTICLE: There is a big shift happening in corporate sustainability that raises major new questions. 1️⃣ Reporting is being split into two categories: - Emissions inventories tied to a company's activities - Corporate interventions beyond value chain (carbon credits, PPAs, EACs, etc).

121

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 16/03/2026

But companies should be incentivized to do whatever is most effective at mitigating climate change regardless if it counts towards their targets or not. Ambition should be measured by what a company does to solve the problem, not by whether its accounting adds up to zero.

110

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 16/03/2026

This shows that target fulfillment is the wrong measure of corporate climate ambition. We should allow those that want to make a net zero claim to do so if they use high quality interventions like durable CDR, EACs, PPAs etc.

110

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 16/03/2026

3️⃣ But this debate misses that most companies' net zero targets are conditional on external change regardless of rules of what counts. And, that much of what's most effective, policy advocacy, R&D, system change, won't count towards targets under any paradigm.

100

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 16/03/2026

2️⃣ This means we need to rethink what net zero target fulfillment means. Which interventions, if any, should count toward targets? There's a full spectrum of positions on this as described in the article From permissive, to strict, to not at all. There's objective answer, it's a political compromise

100

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 16/03/2026

121

Reposted by Robert Höglund

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 21/01/2026

We need a new lens on corporate net zero. Today they mix what companies can control with what they depend on. This leads to unachievable targets, inhibits certain types of action and obscures the role of policy and system change. 1/5

111

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 21/01/2026

In a new article I propose a lens for aligning targets, actions, and claims with what companies control and what they depend on. www.milkywire.com/articles/a-n...

milkywire.com

A new lens on corporate net zero - Milkywire

Market leading carbon removal, climate, and nature solutions

010

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 21/01/2026

How large a share of emission reductions is conditional differs a lot between sectors and business models. Importantly, declaring emissions conditional increases the obligation to fund and push for the solutions that resolve those conditions. 4/5

100

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 21/01/2026

In addition to reducing the emissions they have agency over, companies should help enable the world their targets require, both through funding climate solutions that unblocks global net zero, and their own advocacy. 3/5

110

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 21/01/2026

In reality, net zero targets are conditional. Companies should specify what is needed for their target achievement. What they can do, and what external change they depend on. 2/5

100

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 21/01/2026

111

Reposted by Robert Höglund

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 02/10/2025

Slow reductions=LESS CDR I often see the argument that the more emissions remain the more CDR is needed. Example below But it's the opposite! If a lot of emissions remain it means there wasn't enough political will & capital to address them. That will & capital won't magically appear for CDR instead

134

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 02/10/2025

This is an illustration of what @glenpeters.bsky.social means when he said that CDR does not "exist outside the toolbox". (Screenshot from Allied offsets new brief on cost of CDR. Not trying to pick on them, it's an informative brief, and I would say most people make this assumption. )

000

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 02/10/2025

134

Reposted by Robert Höglund

Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf @rahmstorf.bsky.social · 29/08/2025

Most-viewed Guardian articles last night. Editors shouldn’t think that the public doesn’t want to know more about climate change. Or about ocean science 🌊! Read the article about our paper: www.theguardian.com/environment/...

9409122

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 29/08/2025

Comparing different alternatives is tricky since they rest on so many assumptions. Electrofuels versus using CDR to offset fossil fuel oil depends on the cost of electricity, fossil fuels and CDR. The ISO chart below compares the interaction between them.

110

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 29/08/2025

Of course this first requires that we accept permanent CDR as a solution for a limited amount of emissions.

110

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 29/08/2025

Today, CDR is not an option in most policy frameworks and roadmaps. This should change. We should be agnostic about which solutions are used to reach net zero. Otherwise, we risk making the transition slower, more expensive, and less politically feasible.

120

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 29/08/2025

NEW ANALYSIS: What role will CDR play for shipping? Biofuels, onboard CCS, and durable CDR are likely to be cheapest for the majority of emissions. But many roadmaps center around electrofuels, despite them looking like the most expensive alternative, as with aviation.

440

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 16/07/2025

Cement requiring CCS, is still difficult to address. I see the wording "hard-to-abate" refering to activities that need forcing policy creating a level playing field. A subset of hard-to-abate is also CDR-optimal. 4/5

111

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 16/07/2025

This graph compares economic & energetic needs of aviation and cement mitigation, showing cement is not hard to abate, but aviation is. However, I prefer "CDR-optimal" instead of hard to abate here. 3/5

111

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 16/07/2025

As long as CDR quality criteria are set high, the market will be best at figuring out which emissions are optimal to deal with using CDR. 2/5

212

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 16/07/2025

All emission reductions more expensive than DACCS are hard to abate. That's the proposed definition in this new paper. I agree, and have been arguing for a long time that there is NO need to create a special list of residual emissions... 1/5

133

Reposted by Robert Höglund

James Dinneen @jamesdinneen.bsky.social · 30/05/2025

The CO2 removal industry is about to hit a milestone: 1 million tons of durable removals. But things are moving too slowly to reach gigaton scale on time. At Carbon Unbound summit last week things felt precarious. One person told me without more buyers the industry is in a “house of delusion.”

newscientist.com

At this rate, carbon dioxide removal will never matter for the climate

The carbon dioxide removal industry is struggling to grow at the pace needed to have a significant role in meeting climate targets

32113

Reposted by Robert Höglund

David Ho @davidho.bsky.social · 20/05/2025

I categorically disagree with claims that CO₂ removal (CDR) is a scam. The field is full of smart people dedicated to figuring out what, if anything, works, because we’ll need CDR in the future for legacy and residual emissions. Funding via market mechanisms isn’t ideal, but doesn’t make it a scam.

A conference in a modern venue, with attendees seated at round tables. A presenter stands at a podium in front of large screens displaying slides.

3627859

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 07/05/2025

How many tonnes would the world's biggest CDR buyer be purchasing if they were following the SBTi proposed CDR scale-up requirement? Full article: www.cdr.fyi/blog/zero-vs...

030

Reposted by Robert Höglund

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 18/03/2025

🚨 BREAKING: The just-published draft SBTi Net Zero standard is unlikely to significantly increase demand for CDR. Crucially, CDR targets must include the total CDR needs. 1/9 marginalcarbon.substack.com/p/what-needs...

marginalcarbon.substack.com

What needs to change in the SBTi Net Zero Standard 2.0 to scale carbon removal

The just-published draft standard is unlikely to significantly increase demand for CDR. Crucially, Interim CDR targets must include the total CDR needs, not just for Scope 1.

1106

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 18/03/2025

Finally kudos to all the hard work from the SBTi team. I’ve seen first-hand how much hard work dedicated and smart people have put into it. Trying to balance an enormous amount of input, creating a standard that is both science-based and actually adopted by companies. Not an easy task by any means.

110

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 18/03/2025

The guidelines should incentivize companies that want to support CDR but just need a push, not the opposite. Companies should estimate how much CDR they need at net zero in total, and to start scaling up CDR in a credible manner. 7/9

110

Robert Höglund @roberthoglund.bsky.social · 18/03/2025

There is even a risk of more harm than good for the CDR sector. Although it would increase demand among Scope-1 emitters it could hinder efforts within companies without large Scope 1 emissions to advocate for CDR purchases. CFOs can reference the SBTi's stance that only Scope 1 is needed. 6/9

120