CMW input for South Pole consultation on corporate claims for Funding Climate Action

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

Carbon Market Watch (CMW) responds to a South Pole consultation on a new corporate claim, "Funding Climate Action - with Verified Climate Contributions." CMW supports moving away from "carbon neutral" claims but criticizes the continued use of a "tonne-for-tonne" approach, which it argues incentivizes low-quality, cheap credits. CMW proposes a "dollar for tonne" model and demands full financial transparency regarding the flow of funds from buyers to projects. The response also outlines six fundamental criteria for firms, including the requirement to demonstrate that emissions are truly "unabatable" and to account for all scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions before utilizing carbon credits.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • Carbon Market Watch supports the transition from "carbon neutral" claims to a "contribution" claim model, viewing it as a step toward positioning the voluntary carbon market as a tool for climate finance.
  • The document argues that the "tonne-for-tonne" approach to measuring contributions is inappropriate because it encourages a "race to the bottom" toward the cheapest and lowest-quality credits.
  • CMW recommends adopting a "dollar for tonne" method, where companies price their internal unabated emissions and use those funds to finance mitigation projects.
  • The proposal is criticized for a lack of financial transparency, specifically regarding the amount of money that actually reaches local communities and projects versus intermediaries.
  • CMW asserts that credit quality remains a critical issue regardless of the claim type, noting that non-additional renewable energy credits are "worthless" regardless of the claim used.
  • The response outlines a six-step framework for firms: demonstrating the necessity of activities, calculating full value chain emissions (scopes 1, 2, and 3), minimizing emissions, justifying why residual emissions are "unabatable," financing removals or reductions, and disclosing the full transaction path.

Cite the original document

APA
Carbon Market Watch (2023). CMW input for South Pole consultation on corporate claims for Funding Climate Action. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/CMW-input-for-South-Pole-consultation-on-corporate-claims-for-Funding-Climate-Action_May-2023.pdf
Chicago
Carbon Market Watch. CMW input for South Pole consultation on corporate claims for Funding Climate Action. 2023. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/CMW-input-for-South-Pole-consultation-on-corporate-claims-for-Funding-Climate-Action_May-2023.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite press release |author=Carbon Market Watch |title=CMW input for South Pole consultation on corporate claims for Funding Climate Action |date=11 May 2023 |url=https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/CMW-input-for-South-Pole-consultation-on-corporate-claims-for-Funding-Climate-Action_May-2023.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@misc{carbonmarketwatch2023cmw, author = {{Carbon Market Watch}}, title = {{CMW input for South Pole consultation on corporate claims for Funding Climate Action}}, publisher = {Carbon Market Watch}, year = {2023}, month = may, url = {https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/CMW-input-for-South-Pole-consultation-on-corporate-claims-for-Funding-Climate-Action_May-2023.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated