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 report identifies 815 cases of climate disinformation across 44 audiovisual channels in four countries, finding that private media are significantly more prone to spreading such content than public media. It highlights a negative correlation between the volume of climate coverage and the prevalence of disinformation, suggesting that consistent reporting reduces the risk of misinformation. The analysis reveals distinct national narratives: France focuses heavily on renewable energy costs and inefficiency; Poland links climate policy to anti-EU sentiment and industrial decline; Brazil emphasizes agribusiness virtues and climate denial; and Spain shows a unique susceptibility to 'chemtrails' conspiracy theories. The document recommends journalist training on obstructionist discourses, more rigorous guest selection for TV sets, regular environmental coverage, and the establishment of accountability frameworks for disinformation spreaders.

Carbon Market Watch asserts that CORSIA is a "phantom scheme" due to patchy enforcement and reliance on low-quality offsets. The author highlights that US airlines, including United, Delta, and American Airlines, are unlikely to pay for their emissions under CORSIA, especially under the Trump administration. Consequently, the document urges the EU to expand the EU ETS to all departing EEA flights to generate revenue for transport decarbonisation and ensure airlines are held accountable for their carbon pollution.

A coalition of NGOs argues that the European Commission's plan to modify the EU ETS Market Stability Reserve (MSR) is premature and risks undermining the carbon price signal. They highlight that the MSR has invalidated 3.4 billion allowances since its inception and is essential for managing structural oversupply of allowances, which is expected to persist until 2031. The authors contend that weakening the MSR could increase greenhouse gas emissions after 2030 and hinder the EU's 2040 climate target.

The EU Clean Industrial Transition Monitor identifies progress in Europe's industrial transition but highlights critical weaknesses in demand, infrastructure, financing, and raw material supply. It argues that the Clean Industrial Deal and demand-side policies like the Industrial Accelerator Act can unlock investment, while a strong ETS carbon price remains essential. The report warns against short-term deregulation and calls for long-term fair transition financing to support regional reskilling and economic diversification.

A conflict in the Middle East involving Israel, the US, and Iran has caused global fossil fuel supply disruptions, leading to a nearly 50% increase in European gas prices in early March 2026. The briefing highlights that the EU's fossil import bill rose by an estimated €2.5 billion in the first ten days of the crisis. It argues that countries with high gas reliance for electricity, such as Italy, are most exposed to price spikes, while those that have decoupled gas from electricity prices, like Spain, are more resilient. The author contends that electricity market reforms or removing carbon costs (EU-ETS) are less effective than investing in renewables and clean flexibility to ensure long-term energy security.

A conflict in the Middle East in March 2026 caused European gas prices to spike by nearly 50%, increasing the EU's fossil import bill by €2.5 billion in ten days. The report highlights that countries with lower gas reliance, such as Spain, are more insulated from electricity price hikes than gas-heavy markets like Italy. It argues against suspending carbon costs under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, noting that gas volatility has a far greater impact on bills than carbon pricing.

A coalition of organisations calls on the European Council and EU Member States to protect the integrity of the EU ETS against short-term political intervention. The letter argues that stable carbon pricing is essential for low-carbon industrial investment and warns that weakening the system would increase regulatory risks and financing costs. The signatories demand the maintenance of the agreed cap trajectory for 2030 and 2040 targets, the upholding of the polluter pays principle regarding the phase-out of free allocations, and the strategic use of auction revenues and the Innovation Fund to avoid fossil-based lock-in.

The author contends that CORSIA fails to address aviation's climate impact because it only covers emissions above a high baseline and lacks binding national enforcement mechanisms. Even with penalties, the scheme would only cover 20% of emissions for a Brussels-New York flight by 2030. In contrast, the EU ETS is presented as a superior model due to its 100% coverage of intra-EEA flights and harmonised penalties of €100 per tonne of CO2. The document advocates for the European Commission to extend the EU ETS to all departing flights by mid-2026, which could generate up to €9 billion annually by 2030 to fund zero-emission aircraft and high-speed rail.

The briefing critiques Sweden's Social Climate Plan for its limited focus on a single electric vehicle premium, arguing that it ignores 120,000 heating-poor households and fails to address the root causes of transport poverty. Using the Transitional Assistance Framework, the authors categorize the plan as 'adaptive' but 'narrow' because it provides financial aid without addressing structural barriers like charging infrastructure or public transport. The document contrasts Sweden's approach with more comprehensive proposals from Greece, Latvia, and Poland, and recommends that EU member states prioritize structural investments over short-term technology subsidies to ensure a truly just transition.

Carbon Market Watch asserts that private jet use in Europe is under-regulated despite being the most polluting form of travel. The organization proposes multiplying the carbon price by four for private jets and expanding the scope of the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) to cover the 67% of private jet emissions currently exempt. Such measures could raise between €304 million and €2.2 billion annually by 2030, depending on the scope of coverage and the inclusion of non-CO2 effects. The document also advocates for aviation fuel taxation and the prioritization of low-cost solutions, such as contrail avoidance, over subsidies for unsustainable bio-kerosene.

The EU's 2040 climate target aims for a 90% net reduction in emissions compared to 1990 levels. However, the author contends that this target is a dilution of ambition because it allows 5% of the reduction to be met through international carbon credits and relies on a 'net' framework rather than separate targets for emissions reductions and carbon removals. This design creates a risk of 'mitigation deterrence,' where the expectation of future carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies—such as BECCS and DACCS—justifies slower near-term decarbonization. Despite broad stakeholder support for separate targets, including from some business associations and CDR developers, the European Commission opted for a single net target to simplify governance and maintain industrial competitiveness. The document warns that integrating CDR into the EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) could further allow large emitters to avoid direct cuts.

The document outlines the transition of the EU CBAM from a reporting-only phase to a mandatory financial compliance phase starting January 1, 2026. It details the obligations for 'Authorised CBAM Declarants', the calculation of embedded emissions using either actual verified data or punitive default values, and the requirement to purchase CBAM certificates linked to EU ETS prices. The guide emphasizes the competitive advantage for low-carbon producers and provides a three-stage implementation checklist for exporters to minimize costs and ensure market access to the EU.

Carbon Market Watch claims the European Commission is routinely ignoring or bypassing required impact assessments and public consultations for major climate policies. The author asserts that this shift toward 'vibe-based' policymaking, driven by deregulation and industry lobbying, undermines transparency and risks significant economic and environmental damage, citing specific examples such as the 2040 climate target and the EU ETS2 Market Stability Reserve.

RMI conducted pilots with BCG, Roland Berger, and Estuaire to compare contrail accounting methods. The results show that a bottom-up, flight-specific approach is significantly more accurate than the standard 1.7x multiplier, revealing that 2% of flights cause 80% of contrail impacts. The report advocates for a phased transition toward high-fidelity accounting to enable targeted corporate travel policies and alignment with emerging EU regulations.

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.

Carbon Market Watch criticizes the EU's proposed 2040 climate target for relying on international carbon credits and including 'flexibilities' that weaken domestic ambition. The author calls for a strict domestic emissions reduction target, the exclusion of credits from the EU ETS, and the prevention of delays to the ETS2 system for buildings and road transport. The document also warns against using natural disturbances in forestry as a justification to lower overall climate targets.

The document examines how Poland's high-carbon, energy-intensive economy leads to higher power and gas prices for businesses compared to the EU average, as well as significant costs from the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). It posits that transitioning to renewables and improving energy efficiency can lower production costs, stabilize energy prices through Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), and increase GDP. The briefing highlights that achieving net-zero emissions could add 0.2% to Poland's annual GDP through 2050. It also discusses the role of emissions transparency and the growth of the service sector as additional avenues for competitive differentiation.

Carbon Market Watch and Fern call for the rejection of the CRCF Delegated Act for permanent removals, citing four primary flaws in BioCCS and biochar methodologies: insufficient consideration of biomass extraction's climate effects on land, lack of minimum capture rates for BioCCS, the use of zero baselines that ignore regulatory progress, and the failure to evaluate biomass feedstocks by carbon payback times. The authors warn that these deficiencies risk certifying projects that add emissions rather than removing them, potentially compromising the integrity of the EU ETS if these credits are integrated. They further criticize the vague rules and the potential for a 'race to the bottom' among certification bodies and auditors paid by operators.

Carbon Market Watch asserts that the EU's Sustainable Transport Investment Plan (STIP) is insufficient without expanding the EU ETS to cover all aviation and shipping emissions. The organization estimates that covering all flights leaving the EEA would generate an additional €9 billion annually, rising to €58 billion if non-CO2 effects and private aviation are included. While the STIP utilizes the EU Innovation Fund and European Hydrogen Bank for cleaner fuels, the author argues that funding should shift away from biofuels toward e-kerosene and railway infrastructure, such as the Trans European Transport Network (TEN-T), to adhere to the 'polluter pays' principle.