Search Climate Insights Directory

The report examines the EU's 2040 climate target, which allows up to 5% of the 90% net reduction goal to be met via high-quality international credits under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement from 2036 to 2040. It advocates for centralised purchasing—via the European Commission or a dedicated body—over decentralised Member State procurement to leverage bargaining power, pool expertise, and link purchases to strategic partnerships. The authors warn of significant delivery risks due to strict Article 6 temporal rules, long project lead times, and the increasing tendency of partner countries to retain mitigation benefits for their own NDCs. Key recommendations include a structured procurement timeline starting with Member State notifications by 2030, a calibration report by 2034, and the use of strategic over-procurement to hedge against supply shortfalls. The report explicitly advises against allowing these credits for direct compliance under the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) to maintain the system's integrity.

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 Kuala Lumpur Declaration demands that developed countries fulfill their climate debt through grant-based finance, including an estimated USD 5.1–6.8 trillion by 2030. It advocates for a global Fossil Fuel Treaty, the rejection of 'false solutions' like carbon removal and nuclear power, and the dismantling of restrictive intellectual property regimes to accelerate technology transfer. The declaration further calls for tripling adaptation finance by 2035 and scaling the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage to hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

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.

The document analyzes the implementation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, focusing on the distinctions between the bilateral/multilateral trades of Article 6.2 and the UN-overseen global market of Article 6.4. It highlights critical loopholes, including the risk of double counting in aviation offsetting (CORSIA), the lack of oversight for Article 6.2 trades, and the potential for 'junk' credits from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to transition into the new system. The author argues for stricter authorization processes, mandatory transparency, and a 'firewall' between carbon markets and the new climate finance package being negotiated at COP29.

The policy brief contends that carbon markets are a flawed mechanism that fails to provide real climate finance, instead allowing Global North polluters to avoid direct emission reductions while potentially harming Global South communities.

The document details the operational and structural differences between Article 6.2 (bilateral/multilateral agreements), Article 6.4 (a UN-overseen global carbon market), and Article 6.8 (non-market approaches). It highlights the role of 'corresponding adjustments' in preventing double-counting and the specific financial contributions required under Article 6.4, such as the Share of Proceeds for the Adaptation Fund and the Overall Mitigation of Global Emissions. The author emphasizes that establishing high standards for credit quality and transparency is essential for the success of these markets at COP29.

The study examines the impact of informal institutions—specifically patronage and clientelism—on the distribution of international adaptation finance in Madagascar and Mauritius. Based on 105 interviews, the authors find that while these informal institutions strongly influenced decision-making in both countries, the projects differed in their ability to reach 'particularly vulnerable' communities. The authors suggest that adaptation organizations adopt an 'imperfect equity' approach to better navigate informal institutions and improve long-term accountability.

The author contends that the EU's current climate finance is insufficient compared to its historical responsibility for emissions and its domestic spending. While the EU aims for carbon neutrality, the text argues this creates a 'green fortress' that neglects the needs of vulnerable nations. It suggests reallocating fossil fuel subsidies and implementing taxes on polluters to fund global climate action and warns that the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) could economically penalize African exporters.

The document provides a detailed overview of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, distinguishing between the bilateral/multilateral trading of Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (ITMOs) under Article 6.2 and the UN-supervised global carbon market under Article 6.4. It highlights critical concerns regarding double counting, the lack of oversight in Article 6.2, the risks associated with transitioning legacy Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects, and the potential for 'emissions avoidance' to undermine environmental integrity. The guide outlines key priorities for COP28, including the need for stricter reporting rules, a code of conduct for confidentiality, and the establishment of independent grievance processes.

A coalition of development, faith-based, and environmental organizations requests that the U.S. government maintain $64.5 billion for foreign assistance in FY23 and maximize international climate finance to meet a $11.4 billion commitment. The letter specifies funding targets for bilateral programs, including adaptation and renewable energy, and multilateral funds such as the Green Climate Fund. The authors argue that such investments are essential for U.S. national security, global stability, and international credibility.

A coalition of development, faith-based, and environmental organizations is calling on the U.S. House of Representatives to maintain $64.5 billion for foreign assistance and maximize international climate finance for FY23. The group advocates for funding levels that align with President Biden's $11.4 billion commitment, specifically requesting $1.275 billion for bilateral environment programs and $2.485 billion for multilateral assistance, including $1.6 billion for the Green Climate Fund.

A coalition of environmental, faith-based, and policy organizations is calling on the U.S. Senate to maintain $64.5 billion for foreign assistance and maximize international climate finance to meet President Biden's $11.4 billion commitment. The letter specifies funding targets for bilateral programs, including adaptation and renewable energy, and multilateral funds such as the Green Climate Fund. The authors argue that these investments are essential for U.S. national security, global stability, and international credibility.

The document examines the gap between scientific recognition of transboundary climate risks and the current local focus of multilateral adaptation finance. It proposes a shift toward 'systemic resilience' to address risks that cross borders via shared ecosystems, trade, and financial flows.

The report argues that current climate finance is inadequate for loss and damage due to accessibility barriers, a reliance on loans, and a lack of focus on slow-onset and non-economic losses. It proposes six guiding principles—historical responsibility, equitable support, grant-based finance, accessibility, recipient ownership, and transparency—to inform a new UNFCCC-hosted facility. The authors recommend a phased approach, prioritizing small grants and unconditional cash transfers to empower vulnerable communities.

Carbon Market Watch argues that Parties should prioritize domestic mitigation over carbon credits and recommends strict transparency, science-based definitions for removals, and the establishment of an independent grievance body for Article 6 mechanisms.

The document clarifies the distinctions between Article 6.2 and 6.4 mechanisms, the role of 'corresponding adjustments' in preventing double counting, and the transition of the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) into the new framework. It highlights risks such as the potential for 2.8 billion 'dud' credits from transitioning CDM projects and the lack of mandatory cancellation for ITMOs under Article 6.2.

The document critiques the negotiations surrounding Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, specifically the market-based approaches in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.4. It argues that these mechanisms allow developed nations to avoid direct emission reductions and fail to provide necessary public finance to the global South. The author highlights risks such as double counting, lack of environmental integrity, and human rights abuses, including land grabbing and displacement of Indigenous Peoples. Friends of the Earth International advocates for the rejection of carbon markets in favor of non-market approaches (Article 6.8) and direct, grant-based public finance from Northern governments to Southern countries.

The document critiques the carbon market mechanisms being negotiated under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, specifically Articles 6.2, 6.4, and 6.8. It argues that these markets allow developed countries and fossil fuel companies to avoid direct emission reductions through offsetting, which the author claims is incompatible with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The briefing highlights technical concerns such as double counting and the lack of a legally binding demand for carbon credits, while emphasizing the risks to Indigenous peoples and local communities, including land grabbing and forced displacement. It calls for a shift toward non-market approaches and the fulfillment of public climate finance obligations by the Global North.

The briefing outlines a strategic framework for the Biden Administration to reengage in global climate action through four priorities: fulfilling and doubling the U.S. pledge to the Green Climate Fund, contributing to other multilateral institutions like the Adaptation Fund, integrating climate considerations across all development funding, and pushing multilateral development banks to align with the Paris Agreement.