Climate Foresight 2025

unexpected, counterintuitive, and even perverse results. The process was then repeated to create a full Futures Wheel. The full results of the impact cascades exercise can be found below in Figure 13. We will summarize three of these “branches” here: ●First, we explored the “ideal” scenario for LuxCS. Here, LuxCS’ approach to anticipatory governance becomes the built-in standard for VCMs. The resulting carbon credit values could then incentivize investment in renewa ble e nergy projects. Following that, R&D could increase for carbon sequestration technologies, which could then result in a long-term overall reduction in greenhouse gasses. ●However, perverse outcomes were also imagined. Consider that LuxCS’ approach to anticipatory governance still becomes the standard. The resulting carbon credits wouldincentivize renewable projects. However, imagine that the monetary incentives are so strong that the value of farmland sk yrockets, l eading to a land-grabbing frenzy as developers rush to capitalize on carbon credits. As land becomes more dedicated to carbon projects, agriculture could be pushed out, leading to increased food prices. Here, indigenous peoples could also be priced out of their homeland. ●Finally, a third branch highlights scenarios in which LuxCS’ protocol undermined the energy transition. Even if carbon projects proceed with full transparency, they may not need VCM ince ntives t o do so. In this scenario, there would be no additional emissions reduction (i.e., zero additionality) as a result of LuxCS’ protocol. Therefore, true carbon sequestration would not increase. Sustained emissions by institutions that bought carbon credits would persist, enabled by VCMs despite their transparency.Consequently, this could undermine the global energy transition as a whole. Climate Foresight: Transforming the Voluntary Carbon Markets, by Roger Spitz & James Balzer 33 © Disruptive Futures Institute, March 2025