Search Climate Insights Directory

Carbon Market Watch opposes the use of international carbon credits to meet the EU's 2040 climate target, arguing that such a strategy would result in higher EU emissions, shift responsibility to the Global South, and undermine industrial competitiveness. The organization asserts that current carbon credit markets lack sufficient quality and transparency. While primarily advocating for a fully domestic approach, the document outlines strict quality criteria and a centralized purchasing mechanism that should be implemented if the EU proceeds with international credits as a last resort.

The Common Position of Latin America and the Caribbean on Climate Change and Health outlines a multisectoral framework to center health in climate governance. It identifies critical gaps, such as the fact that only 11 countries in the region have national health and climate change plans and only 11.6% of Green Climate Fund investments in the region address health. The position advocates for six pillars: protecting health from climate impacts, mitigation with health co-benefits, climate justice and equity, adaptation and health system resilience, health leadership, and financing.

WWF expresses caution regarding plastic crediting, stating it should only be an additional approach to robust plastic waste reduction strategies. The organization opposes the terms "plastic neutral" and "plastic neutrality," arguing they are misleading and do not convey true environmental impact. For crediting to be credible, WWF asserts it must drive investment toward circular systems and comprehensive Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), adhere to ISEAL standards, and ensure social safeguards, including living wages for waste pickers. The document emphasizes that credits must prove additionality and match the specific polymer and form of the plastic produced by the buyer to prevent the neglect of low-value plastics.

The document defines traditional and synthetic securitization and analyzes how these mechanisms can be used by fossil fuel companies to diversify funding and manage balance sheets. It critiques current 'green' securitization definitions for being too broad and proposes a three-dimensional framework—focusing on use of proceeds, asset character, and company commitment—to prevent the mechanism from indirectly financing fossil fuel expansion. Reclaim Finance advocates for a regulatory framework that ensures transparency and restricts securitization to sustainable energy activities.

Friends of the Earth International argues that the neoliberal system drives ecological crises and fuels violence against marginalized communities. The organization advocates for a shift from individual human rights frameworks toward the recognition of collective 'rights of peoples' to protect land, water, and ancestral practices. It defines 'territory' as a socially constructed space—including the human body—and positions the defense of these territories and their defenders as a prerequisite for systemic transformation toward sustainable societies.

Friends of the Earth International calls for a Global Biodiversity Framework based on environmental integrity and human rights, rejecting corporate self-regulation and 'false solutions' like nature-based offsets. The organization advocates for the recognition of indigenous peoples' land rights, a transition to agroecology, and the provision of new, public international financial resources for developing countries to implement biodiversity goals.

WWF supports the goal of conserving 30% of the world's land, inland waters, and seas by 2030, provided the target prioritizes equitable governance, Indigenous rights, and ecological connectivity. The organization argues that the 30x30 target must be part of a broader strategy that sustainably manages the remaining 70% of the planet and addresses the direct drivers of biodiversity loss. WWF advocates for the inclusion of Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs) and the implementation of social and environmental safeguards to prevent the displacement of local communities.

The statement asserts that while protecting and restoring ecosystems is essential to meeting the 1.5-degree Celsius goal of the Paris Agreement, natural climate solutions must not be used as a substitute for rapid decarbonization. It calls for strict guardrails on offsets and encourages investors to demand transparency regarding corporate transition plans and the specifics of carbon credit sourcing.

ClientEarth advocates for the removal of fuel tax exemptions in the EU fisheries sector, arguing that these 'harmful subsidies' artificially lower costs, increase fishing capacity, and exacerbate overfishing. The document suggests that these exemptions disproportionately benefit large-scale vessels and super-trawlers, while small-scale fishers are more vulnerable. To achieve this, ClientEarth proposes revising the Energy Taxation Directive (ETD) and leveraging WTO negotiations. It recommends redirecting financial support toward low-impact, small-scale fishers through better quota access and the post-2020 European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) to ensure a just transition and environmental sustainability.

WWF argues that while biobased and biodegradable plastics can support a circular economy, they are not standalone solutions to plastic pollution and must be managed through strict, metric-based assessments and proper infrastructure to avoid environmental trade-offs.

A coalition of 32 NGOs supports a total ban on intentionally added microplastics in the EU to prevent irreversible environmental pollution. While endorsing ECHA's risk assessment that no 'safe level' of microplastics exists, the NGOs argue that proposed exemptions for 'biodegradable' plastics and long transitional periods for cosmetics and fertilizers would undermine the restriction's effectiveness.

WWF provides guidance for corporations on the voluntary purchase of carbon credits, emphasizing that such purchases must be supplementary to a transparent, science-based strategy to reduce Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. The document cautions against using terms like "carbon neutral," "net zero," and "offsetting" due to potential misleading interpretations and the evolving regulatory context of the Paris Agreement. It establishes seven quality criteria for "high-quality" credits—real, measurable, additional, permanent, avoiding leakage, monitored/verified, and complying with safeguards—and advises against credits from nuclear, fossil fuel, or certain biomass projects. Additionally, it introduces the concept of "insetting" as a way to address emissions within a company's value chain, though it notes that standards for insetting are still evolving.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) asserts that emission reductions and adaptation are the primary responses to climate change. While opposing the deployment of solar geoengineering due to environmental, ethical, and geopolitical risks, UCS supports computer modeling and the study of natural events like volcanic eruptions. The organization opposes large-scale stratospheric tests and maintains that small-scale outdoor experiments must be subject to transparent, inclusive, and independent governance mechanisms involving climate-vulnerable communities.

Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) argues that modern 'new generation' trade agreements and the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism empower multinational corporations at the expense of public interest, democratic regulation, and environmental protection. FOEI calls for the immediate halt of treaties such as TTIP, CETA, TPP, and TiSA, and advocates for the complete dismantling of ISDS. The organization proposes a transition toward sustainable trade regimes that prioritize local economies, food sovereignty, and binding social and environmental regulations, while specifically calling for the removal of agriculture from the World Trade Organization (WTO) to protect food security in developing countries.

WWF advocates for science-based decision-making at CITES CoP17, emphasizing the need for increased resources for the Secretariat and a primary focus on National Ivory Action Plans to combat illegal trade. The organization supports Appendix I listings for all pangolin species and various Appendix II listings for sharks, rays, and rosewoods, while opposing proposals to allow legal trade in rhino horn or ivory. WWF also supports measures to combat wildlife cybercrime, corruption, and the laundering of captive-bred specimens.

The UK government advocates for a global market-based measure (GMBM) via ICAO to achieve carbon-neutral growth for international aviation from 2020, while supporting the EU Emissions Trading System as a regional interim measure. The UK emphasizes that responsibility for aviation and shipping emissions lies with ICAO and the IMO respectively, and supports the Single European Sky initiative to improve air navigation efficiency.

Carbon Market Watch opposes expanding LULUCF activities within the CDM, citing risks to climate adaptation, a lack of market demand for offsets, and the non-permanent nature of land-based carbon sequestration compared to permanent fossil fuel emissions. The organization suggests that LULUCF activities are better suited for Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), and REDD+, emphasizing a rights-based approach to food security and land rights.

The document asserts that market-based mechanisms are insufficient on their own to finance necessary emission reductions and must be supported by public finance to build capacity and governance. It argues that international credits should not compete with domestic mitigation efforts in developing countries, nor should they replace domestic action in developed countries. Finally, it suggests that any new framework should be informed by the experiences of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), Joint Implementation (JI), and the EU Emissions Trading System (EU-ETS).

The briefing defines community rights as ancestral, collective, and sovereign rights of local communities and Indigenous Peoples, rooted in their sustainable management of nature and customary law. It positions these rights as 'Third Generation human rights' that serve as a defense mechanism for biological and cultural diversity, specifically opposing the monopolistic intellectual property framework of the WTO TRIPS agreement. The document emphasizes that these rights should be defined from a gender perspective to acknowledge women's roles in conservation and argues against the codification of these rights into formal laws to avoid rendering cultural practices static or imposing a hegemonic legal order.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) demands that industrialized countries reduce emissions by at least 40% by 2020 and provide large-scale financial transfers to developing nations based on climate debt. The organization rejects carbon offsetting, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and the inclusion of forests in carbon markets, arguing that such mechanisms undermine real emission cuts and threaten indigenous land rights. FoEI advocates for the conservation of old-growth forests, the protection of climate refugees, and the removal of the World Bank from climate financing roles due to its undemocratic structure and continued investment in fossil fuels.