Independent concept note · Not affiliated with SBTi · Unlisted
SBTi's 2035 removals mandate needs ex-post, third-party-assured, non-reversible receipts. That's the exact shape of an EWP settlement.
SBTi's Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0 (final, effective 2027-01-31) sets a real compulsory-demand clock: from 2035, large companies must cover a rising share of emissions with genuine carbon removals, and those removals must be verified, ex-post, non-reversible, and never double-counted. This is an independent, unaffiliated look at that bar, years before it takes effect.
Not affiliated, stated plainly, every pageThis package is independent, unsolicited recon by EcoWealth Corporation. It was not requested, produced, reviewed, or endorsed by SBTi. No partnership, adoption, or relationship of any kind is claimed. Nothing here has been sent to SBTi or anyone else; it is staged locally, noindex, unlisted, and shared only if the operator later chooses to.
Read this first: method. Passive reads only: SBTi's own public pages, a same-host robots.txt/sitemap check, and a same-host soft-404/true-404 control probe (a nonsense path fetched on the same host to distinguish a real not-found from a soft-catch). No login, no registration, no scraping behind any paywall, no state-changing call anywhere. Captured 2026-07-16.
The whole thing, plainlySBTi's 2035 rule requires carbon-removal claims to be verified after the fact, checked by an independent third party, and permanently retired, which is, point for point, a description of the receipt our own protocol already produces. This isn't a partnership pitch or outreach; nothing here asks SBTi for anything. The one thing worth taking away: the evidence standard SBTi is about to require already has a working example, years early.
4 facts, credit-first
Real credit is due where it's due. Each fact below was fetched directly for this note; the brief has the exact URL, quote, and (where applicable) the reproducible command.
V2.0 is final and dated
Published 2026-06-11, effective 2027-01-31; target validation under the new rules begins Q1 2027, with a transition window through Q1 2028 for prior-version submissions.
The 2035 clock, exactly as written
From 2035, "Category A" companies must cover ≥1% of Scope 1-3 emissions via eligible removals, rising linearly to 100% by their net-zero year (2050 at latest); ≥10% of long-lived-GHG emissions must use long-lived (century-plus) removals, ramping the same way.
The definitional bar EWP already meets
SBTi V2 requires "verified mitigation outcomes" to be ex-post, independently third-party assured, and permanently retired with no double counting and no forward-looking promise, precisely the shape of a proof → approve → settle → retire receipt.
Real robots.txt/sitemap, honest agent gap
sciencebasedtargets.org ships a real, minimal robots.txt (94B) and a working sitemap.xml (2,643B), but llms.txt/security.txt/ai.txt/agent-card.json all true-404 identically (title literally "search"), matching a nonsense-path control almost byte-for-byte.
Capability brief
SBTi's 2035 removals clock, sourced, then the receipt it will need
The V2.0 timeline, the exact removals ramp, the agent-discovery probe, and the honest EWP-intersection finding: the standard's own definitional bar for a 'verified mitigation outcome' already describes an EWP settlement receipt.
EWP contract 0x76c17C…A14B settles real-world ecological labor on Base mainnet: funded work packet → claimed → proof (photo + GPS + signature) → approved → on-chain settlement. SBTi V2's own bar, ex-post, independently third-party assured, permanently retired, no double counting, no forward promise, is a definition of a receipt, not a methodology. EWP's proof → approve → on-chain settlement → Klima retirement flow already produces exactly that shape of record, years before the 2035 mandate makes removal accounting compulsory at scale. This isn't a claim that EWP packets are SBTi-eligible removals today; durability and tCO2e quantification are separate, unbuilt questions; it's a note that the evidentiary discipline SBTi is about to require already exists in EWP's settlement rail.
What this proposes, and what it doesn't
Not a partnership pitch, not outreach, not a request for anything. SBTi sets voluntary corporate target-validation standards; nothing here asks SBTi to review, adopt, or partner on anything.
What it is: a genuine read of SBTi V2's own removals timeline and definitional bar, and an honest note that EWP's existing settlement/retirement receipt already matches the shape of evidence the standard describes, never a claim that EWP packets qualify as SBTi-eligible removals today.
Scope, stated honestly: EWP doesn't quantify durable (century-plus) removal tonnage, doesn't validate corporate targets, and isn't named anywhere in SBTi's own standard. The comparison is about evidence shape (ex-post, assured, non-reversible, non-duplicated) years ahead of a 2035 deadline, not a present-tense compliance claim.
SBTi's 2035 mandate doesn't need a bigger supply of removals yet, it needs receipts nobody can fake or double-spend by then. EWP has been building exactly that receipt, for a different reason, since before the standard was final.
