Project Drawdown uses different scenarios to assess what determined, global efforts to address climate change might look like. Drawdown Scenario 1 is roughly in-line with 2˚C temperature rise by 2100, while Drawdown Scenario 2 is roughly in-line with 1.5˚C temperature rise at century’s end. Both scenarios are considered to be plausible and economically realistic by the Project Drawdown team. The potential of each technology, or solution, to contribute to each of the scenarios varies and the relative importance of a given solution can differ significantly depending on context and particular ecological, economic, political, or social conditions.

Our methodology calculates the share each solution takes of the total carbon drawdown and rates it by percentile: 1 is 0-20%, 2 is 20%-40% and so on. We take an average rating in the case of the score being different for Scenario 1 and 2. We combine the potential impact for some similar technologies to simplify the analysis. The list of technologies/solutions that Project Drawdown covers is extensive, but not exhaustive and we will follow Project Drawdown updates and related literature to keep our approach and methodology current.

This score takes into account how over- or under-served the solution is in terms of investment (via carbon credits) and in representation in accredited projects. To qualify as an acknowledged solution for carbon reduction or removal, we take the Project Drawdown listing of Solutions. To assess access to carbon credit revenue streams, we then score the project based on whether the Solution has an active methodology identified for accreditation in the major registries (Gold Standard, Verra and CDM). Solutions are considered more neglected if they are represented in fewer of the major standards, or only in the smaller more specialised standards such as Puro and Plan Vivo. Finally, the number of projects evident in these five registries and the total number of credits issued per solution are estimated (January 2021) as a proxy for resources being directed towards those solutions.

The score is compiled from the stated objective of the project and evidence of various externally awarded qualifications and standards that identify the project as supporting biodiversity and community engagement goals. The largest weight is given to whether the stated objective of the project incorporates biodiversity. 36 Biodiversity Hotspots have been identified by Conservation International around the world covering 2.4% of the land surface area, including half of all plant species and 43% of all animal species. Ecosystems qualify for this list if they have over 1,500 endemic vascular plant species (ie a high density of irreplacable plant life) and if 30% or less of the original natural vegetation remains (ie they are threatened). We include a higher score for projects that directly support conservation in these hotspots.

The Verra organiszation includes a Climate, Community and Biodiversity (CCB) Standard programme alongside their main Verifed Carbon Standard. Projects certified with the CCB standard have undergone a rigorous independent assessment process which we acknowledge in our rating. We give a further score if the project supports SDGs related to conservation of life on land or in water or for SDGs contributing directly to community economic development.Additional score is given if the project has been awarded any globally recognised biodiversity or community engagement endorsement such as by the Rainforest Alliance, Wildlife Friendly or others

We include the following aspects in this dimension:

Does a woman lead the project?
Is there evidence of significant employment of women in the project team?
Are women explicitly stated as beneficiaries in of the projects?
Does the project report supporting Sustainable Development Goal #5 Gender Equality?