Search Climate Insights Directory

The Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP) and ClientEarth challenge the UK government's (DECC) justification for a market-wide Capacity Mechanism, asserting that the analysis of generation adequacy is overly conservative and ignores the potential of demand response and interconnectors. They argue that a targeted strategic reserve would be a more cost-effective and less distortive alternative, especially given Ofgem's planned reforms to the Balancing Mechanism which would introduce stronger scarcity pricing signals.

Carbon Market Watch opposes Verra's proposed "tonne-year accounting" method, which would allow projects storing carbon temporarily to issue credits based on the duration of storage (e.g., 100 tonnes for 1 year equals 1 credit). The organization argues this approach is logically flawed regarding radiative forcing, incompatible with finite global carbon budgets, and creates a risk where short-term benefits are prioritized over long-term climate costs. Additionally, it warns that the method could encourage selection bias, allowing high-risk projects to avoid long-term monitoring requirements.

Carbon Market Watch argues that Gold Standard's proposed methodology for crediting the early retirement of coal plants lacks the necessary rigor to ensure additionality and environmental integrity. The organization expresses skepticism that carbon credit finance is a suitable tool for this purpose given the volatility of energy markets and the difficulty of accurately measuring the future viability of coal plants. Specific concerns include the risk of double claiming, vague definitions of 'baseline plants' that might include economically unviable facilities, and the failure to account for the lifecycle emissions of new renewable energy plants.

The document critiques agricultural carbon offsets, stating they risk harming farmers' autonomy, fail to provide permanent carbon sequestration, and may actually increase overall emissions. It recommends that governments and international bodies exclude land-based offsets from carbon markets and instead fund agroecological transitions.

A coalition of NGOs expresses concerns regarding the European Commission's Expert Group on Carbon Removal, specifically citing a lack of gender and sectoral balance in meeting agendas, the underrepresentation of scientific and environmental voices in the group's composition, and a lack of transparency in documentation and agenda-setting. The signatories argue that the group must address fundamental policy questions regarding the EU carbon budget and the prevention of offsetting emissions with removals, rather than focusing solely on technical methodologies.

The letter expresses concern that 555 million carbon offset credits were surrendered into the EU ETS between 2008 and 2011, costing an estimated €5.9bn. The signatories argue that these offsets stifle domestic action, support business-as-usual coal and large hydro projects in the CDM, and allow for 'hot-air laundering' through Track 1 Joint Implementation, thereby threatening the environmental integrity of EU climate policies.

A coalition of organisations argues that allowing carbon credits to meet scope 3 targets undermines the 'mitigation hierarchy' and corporate responsibility for value chain emissions. The letter warns that such flexibility, as suggested in VCMI's 'beta' guidance, would damage the credibility of climate standards and discourage fundamental business model changes necessary for deep reductions.

The document highlights the risk of hexavalent chromium, a carcinogen, leaching from unlined coal ash disposal sites into groundwater. It criticizes the EPA for treating the chemical as a non-carcinogen when ingested in its coal ash rule-making and calls for the regulation of coal ash as a hazardous waste.

The document details the environmental impact of coal ash at Nevada's power plants, highlighting significant groundwater contamination at the Reid Gardner and North Valmy stations and the lack of state-mandated safeguards for disposal sites.

The document presents a series of quotes from representatives of Earthjustice, the Montana Sierra Club, and local community groups opposing proposed legislative changes to coal leasing. The critics argue that the provisions would reduce royalty rates for the government, fast-track permits by removing public comment opportunities, and provide a 'giveaway' to the coal industry while exacerbating water pollution, air pollution, and public health risks, particularly in Montana.

Earthjustice argues that the FWS proposal to delist gray wolves in the Northern Rockies is illegal and biologically unsound. The organization contends that the proposed DPS boundaries are arbitrary, demographic recovery goals are set too low to ensure long-term viability, and state regulatory frameworks in Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana are inadequate to protect wolves from aggressive killing. Furthermore, Earthjustice asserts that the FWS failed to account for habitat fragmentation from roading, the loss of historic range, and the lack of guaranteed funding for management activities.

The document identifies nine clean flexibility tools categorized by their function: optimizing supply, storing energy, sharing electricity, and shifting demand. These tools include pumped hydro, batteries, long duration energy storage (LDES), green hydrogen, grids and interconnectors, peak shaving, and smart electrification. It argues that while the Azerbaijani delegation at COP29 proposed targets for storage, grid expansion, and green hydrogen, a comprehensive approach must also include demand-shifting and supply-flexibility tools to fully unlock renewable energy potential.

This fact sheet contrasts the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), described as an anachronistic 'fossil fuel protection treaty', with the proposed Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, termed a 'climate protection treaty'. It argues that the ECT's investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms create a 'regulatory chill' and protect stranded assets, thereby undermining the Paris Agreement. In contrast, the Fossil Fuel Treaty is presented as a tool to end dependence on oil, gas, and coal through non-proliferation, a fair phase-out, and a just transition, specifically aiming to complement the Paris Agreement by addressing the root causes of 86% of CO2 emissions.

A briefing by Friends of the Earth International criticizing the climate-related goals in the first draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, specifically the target of mitigating 10 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent.

The document critiques the use of biodiversity offsets and certificates, asserting that these financial mechanisms allow for the destruction of nature in one area to be compensated elsewhere, thereby serving capitalist interests rather than solving the biodiversity crisis.

A technical report by a coalition of climate justice organizations arguing that "net zero" targets are used by governments and polluting corporations to mask inaction, avoid responsibility, and potentially increase fossil fuel emissions through the use of distant goals and unproven technologies.

A briefing document by Friends of the Earth International regarding the COP27 climate summit in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, which critiques 'false climate solutions' and proposes alternatives for a just energy transition.

The document argues that the European Commission's proposed legislation on corporate sustainable due diligence is insufficient to end global corporate impunity. It asserts that EU laws must complement, rather than replace, a legally binding UN instrument to ensure effective protection and access to justice for affected people and environments.

This briefing note by Friends of the Earth International critiques Target 8 of the first draft of the post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, arguing that the target prioritizes climate objectives over biodiversity conservation.

A fact sheet by Friends of the Earth International arguing that biodiversity offsets and credits are ineffective and potentially harmful mechanisms for biodiversity protection, advocating instead for transformational change to address the root causes of biodiversity loss.