Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that success at COP20 in Lima depends on rich nations delivering climate finance, specifically filling the Green Climate Fund, which has only seen "USD 2.3 billion in pledges" despite a "USD 100 billion a year by 2020" goal. It emphasizes the need for an international accounting framework to prevent "double counting" and ensure that only countries with "stringent targets" can access carbon markets to avoid the "hot air" issues seen under the Kyoto Protocol. The author calls for the accounting framework to be embedded in the new climate treaty separately from the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA) and highlights the need to streamline human rights safeguards for the CDM, REDD+, and Green Climate Fund.

A coalition of organizations requests UN intervention regarding the Santa Rita hydroelectric project in Guatemala, alleging severe human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings and state-sponsored violence, and criticizing the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) for registering the project despite a lack of genuine indigenous consultation.

Carbon Market Watch asserts that the Joint Implementation (JI) mechanism is plagued by transparency and quality problems, particularly within 'Track 1' projects. The author argues that the mechanism fails to produce genuine emission reductions and that proposed reforms are insufficient, suggesting the scheme be consigned to history after 2020.

The document argues that because climate change is a multi-faceted challenge, the global response post-2020 must integrate the central role of the UNFCCC with other international venues. It notes that the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol already recognize a division of labor, specifically delegating the regulation of emissions from international aviation to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and from shipping to the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

The document evaluates the net climate mitigation impact of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), arguing that its success in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions depends heavily on the additionality of large-scale power projects. It notes that while the CDM was originally designed to shift the location of emission reductions, subsequent international agreements like the Cancun Agreements aim for a net global decrease in emissions. The authors suggest that if large-scale power projects are non-additional, the CDM could potentially increase global greenhouse gas emissions.

The document details the Effort Sharing Decision (ESD), which manages greenhouse gas reduction targets for EU Member States in sectors not covered by the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). It explains how targets are set based on GDP per capita, the role of Annual Emission Allocation units (AEAus), and the specific reporting and compliance cycles managed by the European Commission. The report also outlines seven flexibility options—including banking, borrowing, and the use of Kyoto units—and discusses how the ESD interacts with other EU directives on renewable energy and energy efficiency, as well as the Kyoto Protocol.

The statement argues that the CDM currently functions as a zero-sum offsetting mechanism that may increase global emissions due to non-additional credits. It recommends a shift toward achieving 'net atmospheric benefits' and proposes rigorous reforms to additionality assessments, the exclusion of high-emission technologies like coal, and the establishment of formal grievance mechanisms and enhanced civil society participation. The author also calls for greater transparency from Designated National Authorities (DNAs) and a restructured CDM Executive Board to prevent conflicts of interest.

The paper identifies four types of double counting—double issuance, double claiming, double use, and double purpose—and argues that preventing these is essential for the integrity of international carbon markets. It recommends a 'net flows' accounting approach to ensure full fungibility of units and the international linking of emissions trading schemes. To prevent double issuance, the authors suggest a combination of entity attestations, host country approval, and a centralized UNFCCC information platform. The document emphasizes that globally unique serial numbers containing detailed metadata on mechanism, country, vintage, and scope are critical for effective international oversight.

The paper argues that single-year targets create uncertainty regarding emissions pathways and may reduce cumulative mitigation outcomes compared to multi-year targets, especially when tradable units are used. It assesses four accounting options to address these issues and recommends that future international agreements require continuous multi-year targets to ensure comparability and alignment with carbon budgets.

The paper evaluates the Adaptation Fund's early project approvals, finding that while equity is the primary motivation, the use of uniform national caps rather than formalized vulnerability metrics may result in inequitable outcomes.

The COP19 analysis by Carbon Market Watch describes the conference as demoralizing due to the influence of corporate interests and the lowering of climate targets by countries like Japan. While the conference established a mechanism for loss and damage and made progress on REDD+ safeguards and funding, it failed to reach decisions on future carbon markets, the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA), or the New Market Mechanism (NMM). The document also notes that reforms to the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) were largely postponed, though some guidance on stakeholder consultation for the CDM was improved.

The Climate Action Network (CAN) argues that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) have failed to deliver real emissions reductions, potentially contributing to an increase of 1 billion tons of global emissions. The statement demands fundamental reforms to additionality requirements, the mandate of net atmospheric benefits, and improved governance, while specifically calling for a halt to the issuance of JI offsets during the interim period.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is in a precarious state due to a severe supply-demand imbalance, with Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs) prices dropping over 90% in 18 months to approximately Euro 0.4. The organization asserts that at these price levels, implementing new additional projects is impossible. To ensure a viable future for the CDM, Carbon Market Watch recommends fundamental reforms focusing on additionality requirements, shorter crediting periods, the protection of human rights, sustainable development contributions, increased civil society participation, the establishment of a grievance mechanism, and improvements to the CDM Executive Board's conduct.

The document is an open letter from civil society networks and affected citizens calling on UNFCCC delegates at COP19 to ensure that carbon markets do not undermine climate goals. It demands the prevention of the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA) pilot phase, the establishment of accounting rules to avoid double counting, and the exclusion of non-additional projects and fossil fuel financing from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The document is an open letter addressed to ministers and delegates of UNFCCC signatory states, urging them to adopt ambitious climate protection measures and stop the use of emissions trading to weaken climate commitments. The signatories, representing 33 countries, demand the rejection of a pilot phase for emissions unit trading under the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA), the prevention of double counting, and the exclusion of non-additional projects and coal from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). They also call for the cessation of fossil fuel subsidies and the implementation of human rights safeguards in climate projects.

The document examines how international offset mechanisms, which typically provide no net atmospheric benefit, could be designed to deliver a net decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. It identifies the need for certain additionality, surplus reductions, the avoidance of double counting, and the exclusion of surplus reductions from host country pledges to achieve a net atmospheric benefit.

The document outlines the role of the Coalition for Rainforest Nations (CfRN) in supporting developing countries during international climate negotiations, specifically focusing on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+). It argues that the Kyoto Protocol failed to address deforestation, which accounts for approximately 20% of annual global CO2 emissions, and details CfRN's strategies for capacity building, including technical support, negotiation training, and securing leadership roles for delegates. Case studies from the Dominican Republic, Papua New Guinea, and Liberia illustrate the practical application of these supports in national policy and international diplomacy.

The document examines the tension between the 'green growth' agenda promoted by developed nations and Brazil's preference for 'sustainable development' and autonomous industrialisation. It argues that while Brazil possesses significant environmental assets, its domestic policies—including those of the BNDES and Petrobras—continue to prioritise short-term economic growth and fossil fuel consumption over a green transition. Internationally, Brazil aligns with BRICS and other emerging economies to resist binding emissions commitments and protectionist 'green' trade barriers, despite its own voluntary GHG reduction targets.

A coalition of organizations urges the UN Special Rapporteur to recommend that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) integrate human rights protections into its governing policies. The request is driven by documented abuses associated with the Barro Blanco hydroelectric dam in Panama and other CDM projects in Honduras and India. The authors propose four specific reforms: establishing international safeguards, strengthening stakeholder consultation, creating a project de-registration process for human rights violations, and implementing a grievance mechanism for affected communities.

The Durban Declaration on Climate and Health, signed by health professionals from over 30 countries, argues that climate change is the greatest global health threat of the 21st century and that mitigation efforts, specifically transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy, provide immediate health benefits. The declaration outlines five specific calls to action for COP17 delegations, including the need for greater health sector representation in the UNFCCC, the adoption of a strong second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol, and the negotiation of a binding agreement by 2015 that prioritizes human health and establishes a fair shares framework for emissions reductions.