Search Climate Insights Directory

The Energy Supply Financing Ratio (ESFR) compares a bank's financing of fossil fuels against its financing of sustainable alternatives, with a target ratio of 6:1 by 2030 based on IEA scenarios. Reclaim Finance warns that varying methodologies allow banks to present misleading ratios, often by excluding capital market activities or including fossil-fuel-related technologies like CCUS in 'low-carbon' scopes. While some North American and French banks have begun publishing these ratios, significant gaps in transparency and scope persist.

The report examines the Energy Supply Financing Ratio (ESFR), a metric used to compare bank financing of sustainable energy versus fossil fuels. While adoption is increasing due to shareholder pressure, the author argues that current methodologies are often flawed. European banks like BNP Paribas and Crédit Agricole set ambitious targets but use narrow definitions of fossil fuel activities and omit bond/equity financing. Conversely, North American banks like Citi and JPMorgan Chase provide more comprehensive coverage of the fossil fuel value chain but artificially inflate their 'low carbon' figures by including fossil-based hydrogen, carbon capture, and non-energy sectors.

Carbon Market Watch concludes that Verra's VM0052 methodology for coal-to-clean carbon credits is inadequate and should not be used to issue credits in its current form. The report identifies critical risks of carbon leakage, over-estimation of emission reductions due to static baseline assumptions, and potential double counting. It also finds that the 'just transition' requirements are too vague and susceptible to manipulation, particularly regarding benefit-sharing and worker compensation. Using the South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation (SLTEC) project in the Philippines as a case study, the report illustrates how independent power producers could build new coal plants to replace retired capacity, nullifying climate benefits. The author urges Verra to suspend the methodology and implement substantive revisions.

Carbon Market Watch argues that Verra’s VM0052 methodology for coal transition credits is significantly flawed and should be put on hold. The briefing identifies critical risks of carbon leakage due to low renewable energy pairing requirements, weaknesses in baseline-setting and additionality tests, and inadequate safeguards against double issuance. It also finds that just transition provisions are unreliable, particularly regarding benefit-sharing and stakeholder mediation. Using a case study of the South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation (SLTEC) in the Philippines, the document illustrates how the methodology could allow for the overissuance of credits that do not represent real emission reductions.

The report investigates whether corporate use of carbon credits substitutes or complements internal emission reductions. A review of existing literature shows mixed results: while several studies find a positive correlation between carbon credit use and internal emission reductions, a peer-reviewed study by Stolz and Probst (2025) finds no significant correlation and provides qualitative evidence of 'mitigation deterrence' in some cases. Interviews with companies indicate that the role of carbon credits is shifting due to greenwashing concerns and the rise of science-based targets (SBTi). The authors conclude that developing a robust empirical study to prove causality is inherently challenging due to endogeneity, data limitations in the CDP database, and structural changes in corporate climate strategies.

The briefing proposes a dual-metric approach to track methane emissions in the oil and gas sector, noting that a single metric cannot fairly assess the diverse physical and chemical makeups of petroleum resources. It highlights the economic viability of capturing wasted gas and calls for policy-driven demand to incentivize low-methane production.

The policy brief by Carbon Market Watch and Oeko-Institut criticizes the draft CRCF methodologies for permanent carbon removals, citing critical failures in additionality, biomass accounting, and long-term monitoring. It argues that the current framework risks certifying low-quality units that do not represent actual emission reductions, potentially undermining EU climate action.

The Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) conducted a pilot study to evaluate the SEI AI Reader, an LLM-based tool designed to extract data from policy documents. By testing the tool against human analysis of four documents using an analytical framework of 12 variables and 46 questions, researchers found the AI achieved approximately 85% accuracy and consistency between 69% and 90%. The study highlights that iterative prompt refinement—specifically combining broad structured queries with specific analytical questions and using 'context variables'—is essential to avoid generic responses. The authors conclude that AI-generated data is sufficiently high-quality for academic scrutiny, offering a scalable way to synthesize grey literature on climate policy implementation.

The document outlines the application of the Unlocking a Better Future (UBF) framework to Scotland's policy landscape to support a "net-zero, nature-positive" future. It details a methodology involving the mapping of existing policies against three transformative shifts—redefining the human-nature relationship, ensuring lasting prosperity, and investing in a sustainable future—to identify systemic gaps. Key recommendations include integrating nature-based education, exploring the 'Rights of Nature', and adopting wellbeing-based economic metrics. The framework emphasizes the use of the SDG Synergies tool to manage policy trade-offs and suggests tracking progress through values-based indicators, such as those from the World Values Survey, to monitor deep structural and cultural shifts.

The document discusses the evolution of rural territorial ordering (OTR), noting that the availability of geoinformatic tools has shifted the focus from the costly generation of original spatial data to the strategic selection and integration of existing information sources to assess the potential of geographic spaces to provide ecosystemic, productive, and social services.

Reclaim Finance analyzes 243 sectoral targets from 30 global banks, concluding that most are ineffective due to flawed methodologies, partial coverage, and a lack of transparency. The report specifically criticizes the use of PCAF attribution factors, which can make emissions appear to drop even if real-world emissions remain flat. It recommends shifting toward targets based on financing volumes for fossil fuels, absolute sectoral portfolio emissions, and physical intensity for industrial sectors to drive genuine decarbonization.

The paper evaluates the quality of six major global scenario sets using scenario diversity analysis, a quantitative method designed to assess how well a set of scenarios covers the space of future possibilities. While the results indicate that the assessed sets perform relatively well in terms of diversity, the authors highlight a potential trade-off between the breadth of future possibilities covered and the introduction of redundancy within the sets, particularly when using classic scenario architecture methods.

The report examines how governments can monitor green public procurement (GPP) to track progress toward climate goals. It categorizes monitoring into institutionalization, outputs, and outcomes, while detailing specific tools for measuring CO2 impacts. Through case studies of South Korea, Japan, Slovenia, Denmark, Malaysia, and the Netherlands, it identifies key success factors such as strong legal mandates and e-procurement integration. It also highlights significant barriers, including data insufficiency, decentralized procurement structures, and a lack of specialized technical skills. The document concludes with recommendations for governments to define clear targets, mandate monitoring through policy, and strengthen data management systems.

The report outlines a methodological framework for evaluating infrastructure in the Shymkent–Tashkent–Khujand economic corridor, comparing 'business-as-usual' scenarios with sustainable alternatives for transport and buildings. It proposes shifting from road-based freight to electrified rail and adopting green building standards to reduce CO2 emissions, lower operational costs, and improve health and employment outcomes. The assessment utilizes the SAVi methodology to integrate externalities, such as the social cost of carbon and health impacts, into a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis.

Reclaim Finance strongly opposes the GFANZ proposal to introduce 'Expected Emission Reductions' (EER) as a metric for transition finance. The organization argues that EER relies on subjective, unprovable counterfactual baselines—similar to the failed logic of carbon offsets—which would allow financial institutions and polluters to manipulate data to justify continued funding for fossil fuels. While Reclaim Finance supports the concept of 'Expected Cumulative Emissions' (ECE) to track alignment with net zero, it warns that 'avoided emissions' metrics are generally unsuitable for climate solutions, except in the specific case of managed phaseouts of high-emission infrastructure like coal plants. The document concludes that instead of creating complex new metrics, financial institutions should improve financed emissions methodologies and adopt robust transition plans including strict exclusion criteria and an end to fossil fuel expansion finance.

The report identifies critical methodological failures in Verra's REDD+ carbon credit system, specifically regarding overestimated baselines, underestimated leakages, inflated carbon accounting, and ignored permanence risks. It concludes that these credits do not represent real emission reductions and should not be used to offset fossil fuel emissions, recommending a shift from 'offsetting' to 'contribution' funding for forest conservation.

The report identifies critical methodological failures in REDD+ forestry projects certified by Verra, specifically regarding baselines, leakage, carbon accounting, permanence, and safeguards. It argues that project developers exploit methodological flexibility to inflate emission reductions, resulting in low-quality carbon credits that do not represent real climate benefits. The document concludes that REDD+ credits are not equivalent to emission reductions and should not be used to offset fossil fuel emissions.

The report identifies systemic failures in Verra's REDD+ methodologies, specifically regarding baseline inflation, underestimated leakage, exaggerated carbon accounting, and underestimated reversal risks. It argues that these flaws allow project developers to maximize credit issuance through 'convenience' selections rather than scientific accuracy. The document concludes that REDD+ credits do not represent real emission reductions and should not be used to offset fossil fuel emissions, recommending a shift toward 'contribution' claims and stricter, independent oversight.

The report evaluates the methodologies of carbon credit rating agencies BeZero, Calyx, Renoster, and Sylvera, highlighting a systemic lack of standardised quality assessment in the carbon market. It notes that while these agencies aim to increase transparency and mitigate risk, their approaches vary significantly, particularly in the use of algorithmic analysis versus direct testing and the treatment of additionality and leakage.

The document argues against the use of Expected Emission Reductions (EER) and avoided emissions as metrics for transition finance, claiming they rely on subjective, non-conservative baselines and risk rewarding high polluters. It advocates for the use of Expected Cumulative Emissions (ECE) to monitor alignment with net-zero pathways and emphasizes that transition finance should not be used to support the fossil fuel sector, which the author asserts is making performative efforts to transition.