Search Climate Insights Directory

The report analyzes the evolution of 'net zero' and 'nature positive' concepts, detailing how they are operationalized through taxonomies and methodologies in the financial sector. It highlights the interdependence of climate and nature crises, arguing for an integrated 'net-zero nature-positive' (NZNP) finance approach to manage compounding risks and leverage synergies, while noting that a unified NZNP definition and measurement protocol do not yet exist.

The document explains the mechanisms of Article 6.2, specifically the trade of Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (ITMOs) between host and buyer countries. It identifies key reporting tools, such as the UNEP Article 6 Pipeline and the UNFCCC's Centralized Accounting and Reporting Platform (CARP), and details how to use Initial Reports, Annual Information Reports, and Authorisation Letters to find project-specific data. The guide also outlines paths for accountability, including the use of Freedom of Information Act requests and collaboration between civil society in both host and buyer countries.

The document is an open letter from energy systems researchers supporting the modernization of the GHGP scope 2 market-based method (MBM). The authors argue that the current MBM allows companies to claim zero emissions without a physical relationship between generation and demand, thereby failing as a legitimate value chain inventory and providing minimal real-world emissions impact. They advocate for the adoption of hourly matching, deliverability, and incrementality criteria to steer procurement toward new clean energy projects and technologies like energy storage and clean firm generation. While supporting the proposed updates, the signatories suggest strengthening them with an explicit age-based incrementality requirement to close gaps where legacy clean generators operate as merchant participants.

The report examines the potential of the EU's CSRD and CSDDD to drive methane emission reductions in the meat and dairy industries. While the CSRD mandates transparency and disclosure of greenhouse gas data, the CSDDD requires companies to act on adverse environmental and health impacts. The document highlights that despite 'simplification' via the Omnibus I process—which reduced the number of companies in scope and removed specific climate transition plan requirements from the CSDDD—these directives still provide levers to address methane as a precursor to ground-level ozone. It argues that mandatory reporting and due diligence can prevent companies from relying on 'end of pipe' solutions like biogas and instead push for upstream mitigation.

The report argues that fossil fuel interests use corporate lobbying, trade associations, and advisory roles to maintain the availability of cheap, low-quality carbon credits to avoid structural decarbonization. It details specific efforts to weaken California's cap-and-trade program and oppose transparency laws like AB 1305, while highlighting the role of the CFTC in federal oversight. The document concludes with recommendations to ban fossil fuel companies from climate advisory roles and eliminate carbon credits from California's compliance mechanisms.

The document outlines a framework for responsible mining of transition minerals, focusing on protecting carbon-rich ecosystems, upholding Indigenous rights through Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), and implementing rigorous climate-integrated impact assessments. It advocates for standardized Scope 1-3 emissions reporting, digital traceability, and a shift toward a circular economy to reduce virgin metal demand. Additionally, it proposes equitable benefit-sharing models, such as co-ownership and sovereign wealth funds, to ensure a just energy transition.

The 17th edition of the Banking on Climate Chaos report finds that the world's largest banks committed $906 billion to fossil fuel companies in 2025, an 8% increase from 2024. Financing for fossil fuel expansion rose by over 27% to $508 billion. The report highlights a high concentration of finance, with a 'Dirty Dozen' of banks providing nearly 39% of global fossil deals. It also notes a trend of policy backsliding, where banks are weakening climate commitments and abandoning net-zero targets, particularly in the US. The report argues that this financing amplifies energy instability and inequality, especially during geopolitical crises like the 2026 US-Israel war on Iran.

A joint letter from 54 organizations calling for an independent health impact assessment and the suspension of public financial support for LNG projects due to excessive flaring and emissions at the LNG Canada facility in Kitimat, BC.

The report analyzes the first round of Article 6.2 reviews, finding that every reviewed Initial Report contained inconsistencies with reporting requirements. It argues that the Technical Expert Review Team (TERT) lacks the mandate to judge credit quality or enforce compliance, rendering the process a 'box-ticking exercise'. Case studies on Switzerland, Ghana, Guyana, and Vanuatu illustrate how high-risk or non-compliant credits can be traded despite transparency gaps. The author recommends extending the TERT mandate to include quality assessments and prohibiting the trade of credits until reviews are finalized.

The report examines the impact of New York's CLCPA greenhouse gas accounting method, which differs from the UNFCCC standard. It finds that the CLCPA approach increases the distance to statutory targets and alters cost-effective abatement strategies, though substantial reductions remain necessary regardless of the method used. The authors argue that marginal abatement cost data for different gases and sectors is essential for evaluating the 2025 New York State Energy Plan.

Carbon Market Watch advises the European Commission against incorporating international credits into the EU's 2040 climate target. The organization argues that such a move would ignore scientific advice for 90-95% domestic emission reductions, violate the spirit of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, and expose the EU to significant financial and reputational risks. The document highlights systemic failures in carbon credit integrity, including over-crediting and human rights violations, and estimates that relying on credits for 5% of the target could result in EU emissions being 50% higher than a fully domestic target, costing up to €49.7 billion.

A technical assessment of 25 BiCRS protocols reveals that only 28% are satisfactory, with 72% scoring below satisfactory. The report identifies critical flaws in greenhouse gas accounting, particularly regarding system boundaries, biomass production emissions, and the treatment of uncertainty. It recommends adopting comprehensive system boundaries, standardizing the treatment of biomass baselines, and implementing robust measurement, monitoring, reporting, and verification (MMRV) to protect market and climate integrity.

Ember argues that large-scale biomass power is incompatible with UK carbon budgets due to high emissions and import reliance. It recommends capping generation at Drax and Lynemouth, shifting to domestic feedstock, and scaling up low-carbon alternatives like wind, solar, and batteries.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) and Natural Justice (NJ) argue that the proposed MIR for onshore exploration in South Africa lacks the specificity, enforceable standards, and climate integration necessary to protect environmental integrity and community interests. They recommend mandatory greenhouse gas accounting, a regional cumulative impact assessment, and a comprehensive public health baseline. Technical experts in the document highlight critical gaps in groundwater monitoring, the absence of a risk-based 'traffic light protocol' for induced seismicity, and the need for transparent chemical disclosure of fracturing fluids. The authors ultimately argue that hydraulic fracturing is incompatible with South Africa's climate commitments and water scarcity, suggesting it should be prohibited.

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 identifies a gap in corporate climate reporting where current GHG accounting cannot credibly reflect the impact of specific mitigation interventions. To address this, the authors propose a multi-statement reporting framework that combines traditional accounting with a new 'Mitigation Intervention' statement. This framework utilizes consequential accounting to measure causal effects of interventions both inside and outside corporate value chains, supported by eligibility principles, governance, and independent verification to reduce greenwashing and encourage high-impact action.

The report examines various formulas for calculating methane intensity, evaluating trade-offs between simplicity, accuracy, and applicability. It specifically addresses the needs of the EU Methane Regulation, which requires a methodology for producer-level intensity by August 2027 to set maximum intensity thresholds for oil and gas placed on the Union market by 2030. The analysis covers key decisions such as using single versus separate formulas for oil and gas, the choice between produced and marketed product denominators, and the appropriate level of granularity for reporting.

The paper argues that while West Africa possesses over 300 Tcf of proven gas reserves, regional prosperity is hindered by regulatory fragmentation, bilateral financing that bypasses regional coordination, and global decarbonization risks. It recommends the adoption of a binding regional gas code, the creation of a 5 billion USD Gas Infrastructure Development Fund, and the establishment of a West African Gas Task Force to align national and external investments with a 10-year regional roadmap.

The document argues that there are no credible pathways to tackle the climate crisis without trade policies aligned with the Paris Agreement. It identifies key areas for cooperation, including the management of climate-trade tensions (such as the EU's CBAM), the acceleration of clean energy transitions, and the decarbonization of industrial sectors like shipping and steel. A central theme is the need for 'climate justice,' ensuring that developing nations are not marginalized by green industrial policies or unilateral trade measures. The report proposes several mechanisms for progress, including the Integrated Forum on Climate Change and Trade (IFCCT) proposed for COP30, the 'greening' of Aid for Trade (AfT), and the development of regional green trade blocs like a potential arrangement within the RCEP. It emphasizes that a just transition requires bridging the gap between the WTO and UNFCCC, harmonizing carbon accounting standards, and increasing climate finance for adaptation in the Global South.

The report examines the transition of cookstove carbon credits from legacy methodologies, which faced allegations of over-crediting, to more rigorous, CCP-approved standards. It identifies monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) as a high-concern risk due to complex human behaviors like stove stacking and the Hawthorne effect, while highlighting the role of new tools like MoFuSS and the forthcoming CLEAR methodology in improving credit integrity.