Search Climate Insights Directory

The RMI Aluminum GHG Emissions Reporting Guidance establishes a framework for product-level emissions reporting in the aluminum sector. It defines fixed system boundaries—benchmarking and full—to ensure comparability regardless of a producer's vertical integration. The guidance emphasizes the use of primary data, provides specific calculation procedures for primary and recycled aluminum, and outlines a hierarchy for sourcing renewable energy to drive sectoral decarbonization.

The report examines decarbonization efforts in heavy industry, noting that as of May 2023, companies with carbon neutrality targets cover between 18% and 31% of emissions in the steel, cement, petrochemicals, and aluminum sectors globally. It introduces the PTAM framework to evaluate performance and targets, and recommends six specific actions for Chinese state-owned enterprises to accelerate their transition to zero-carbon operations.

The policy brief advocates for a transition to 24/7 carbon-free energy (CFE) in Europe, asserting that variable renewable energy alone cannot maintain grid reliability. It proposes a three-pronged approach: commercialising 'clean firm' technologies (such as next-generation nuclear, CCS, and geothermal), reforming electricity market designs to move beyond short-term marginal cost pricing toward hybrid markets that reward capacity, and updating the GHG Protocol's Scope 2 accounting from annual to hourly tracking to incentivise the procurement of dispatchable carbon-free power.

The document argues that current GHG Protocol Scope 2 rules are insufficient for impactful decision-making due to a lack of temporal and geographic granularity. The signatories propose a three-part framework for modernization: updating the Location-Based Method with more granular data, improving the Market-Based Method through stricter time- and location-matching requirements to align with physical electricity deliverability, and introducing new, separate consequential impact disclosures to reflect the actual atmospheric emissions resulting from a buyer's actions.

The document defines REDD+ and traces its evolution from a UNFCCC results-based finance mechanism to the use of private standards like the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) for generating tradable carbon credits. It asserts that REDD+ projects, primarily located in the Global South, frequently overestimate their climate impact due to methodological flexibility in baseline setting, leakage, and permanence. The author argues that biological carbon storage cannot fully offset fossil fuel emissions and calls for more stringent, science-aligned standards and alternative financial avenues for forest conservation.

The report examines the GWP* metric, which focuses on changes in methane emissions over time rather than absolute levels. It argues that this methodology allows high-polluting companies and countries to present minor reductions as negative emissions, thereby escaping accountability and undermining the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C goal. Through case studies of Tyson, Fonterra, and New Zealand, the document demonstrates how GWP* can make significant emitters appear climate neutral. It further details lobbying efforts by the animal agriculture industry in the US, UK, Ireland, and New Zealand to adopt this metric.

The report advocates for low-carbon procurement in China's heavy industry to reduce transition costs via economies of scale and shared green premiums. It outlines a five-part implementation framework and identifies five priority value chains: steel-automotive, steel-construction, cement-construction, aluminum-automotive, and plastics-consumer goods.

The document asserts that REDD+ forestry credits are not equivalent to emission reductions due to systematic failures in five key areas: overestimated baselines, underestimated permanence risks, underestimated leakage, exaggerated carbon accounting, and weak safeguards. It concludes that current offsetting is unfit for purpose and recommends rigorous scrutiny, independent data verification, and a ban on using forest carbon storage to offset fossil fuel emissions.

Indonesian and international CSOs are calling on global fashion brands to phase out both fossil fuels and biomass energy, arguing that biomass is a 'false solution' that drives deforestation and violates human rights. The letter highlights that brands like H&M, Puma, Adidas, and Inditex are promoting biomass in Southeast Asia despite its high emissions and negative impacts on biodiversity and local communities. The authors argue that woody biomass can generate more CO2 per kilowatt hour than coal and risk the loss of over 2 million hectares of natural forest in Indonesia.

Indonesian NGOs and international think tanks are calling on global fashion brands to stop using biomass as a 'low carbon' alternative to fossil fuels. They argue that biomass leads to deforestation, violates indigenous rights, and produces high emissions, specifically citing the risks to the Leuser ecosystem and the flaws in carbon accounting used by the Indonesian government and companies like H&M, Puma, Adidas, and Inditex.

The report identifies critical methodological failures in Verra's REDD+ carbon credit system, specifically regarding overestimated baselines, underestimated leakages, inflated carbon accounting, and ignored permanence risks. It concludes that these credits do not represent real emission reductions and should not be used to offset fossil fuel emissions, recommending a shift from 'offsetting' to 'contribution' funding for forest conservation.

The report identifies critical methodological failures in REDD+ forestry projects certified by Verra, specifically regarding baselines, leakage, carbon accounting, permanence, and safeguards. It argues that project developers exploit methodological flexibility to inflate emission reductions, resulting in low-quality carbon credits that do not represent real climate benefits. The document concludes that REDD+ credits are not equivalent to emission reductions and should not be used to offset fossil fuel emissions.

The report identifies systemic failures in Verra's REDD+ methodologies, specifically regarding baseline inflation, underestimated leakage, exaggerated carbon accounting, and underestimated reversal risks. It argues that these flaws allow project developers to maximize credit issuance through 'convenience' selections rather than scientific accuracy. The document concludes that REDD+ credits do not represent real emission reductions and should not be used to offset fossil fuel emissions, recommending a shift toward 'contribution' claims and stricter, independent oversight.

The document outlines the technical framework for certifying low-carbon buildings under the Climate Bonds Standard. It shifts the focus from energy use intensity to emissions intensity, establishing city-specific linear trajectories aimed at net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The criteria distinguish between new and existing buildings, introducing mandatory Whole Life Carbon Assessments (WLCA) for new constructions to account for embodied carbon. It also provides a guide for Scope 3 GHG accounting across the building value chain, from manufacturers to owners and deconstruction firms.

The Corporate Commitments and Emissions Explorer uses a formula-based approach to estimate corporate emissions trajectories, incorporating revenue growth, climate targets, and sectoral intensities. It offers five preset outlooks—Current, Climate-Aligned Action, Herd Catches Leaders, Laggards Catch Herd, and No Further Action—to simulate different levels of corporate ambition. The tool focuses on Scope 1 and 2 emissions, utilizing data from CDP and the Net Zero Tracker, while excluding Scope 3 emissions due to data quality and double-counting risks. Companies are categorized as ambitious, somewhat ambitious, or least ambitious based on their disclosure habits, emission intensities, and the nature of their climate commitments.

A pilot project involving RMI, SINAI Technologies, and ArcelorMittal demonstrates that using process-level primary emissions data and dedicated software helps steel producers meet reporting requirements and allows buyers to verify the decarbonization impact of their procurement.

WRI researchers argue that global wood harvests significantly increase atmospheric carbon, with annual emissions estimated between 3.5 and 4.2 billion tons of CO2e. The document critiques 'netting' approaches that incorrectly label harvests as carbon neutral by offsetting them against unrelated forest growth. It projects a 54% increase in global wood consumption by 2050 and suggests that reducing fuelwood use and increasing plantation growth rates could mitigate these emissions.

The Steel GHG Emissions Reporting Guidance establishes a framework for product-level emissions accounting in the steel sector. It mandates reporting based on a fixed system boundary and the use of primary data to ensure comparability and transparency. A key feature is the 'sliding-scale' approach, which benchmarks emissions intensity against 1.5°C trajectories while accounting for the different carbon intensities of ore-based versus scrap-based production. The guidance also defines criteria for labeling abatement technologies and provides detailed procedures for calculating emissions from exported products, by-products, and fugitive methane.

The document outlines an eight-step process for finance leaders to align GHG emissions reporting with financial accounting. It emphasizes the need for cross-functional collaboration between finance and sustainability teams, the application of risk and materiality assessments, and the extension of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems and internal controls to ensure GHG data is reliable, verifiable, and decision-useful for capital markets.

The document outlines the application of the GHG Protocol's three scopes of emissions—direct (Scope 1), indirect energy (Scope 2), and value chain (Scope 3)—within a corporate accounting context. It emphasizes using financial reporting boundaries and existing ERP systems to automate data collection from invoices, thereby improving data quality and auditability. The guide details three methods for Scope 3 upstream emissions: spend-based, activity-based, and supplier-specific, while noting the challenges of downstream calculations. It also introduces the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) standards IFRS S1 and S2, which require climate-related disclosures and GHG emissions reporting to be aligned with financial statements.