Search Climate Insights Directory

The report details how Shell and TotalEnergies integrate themselves across the VCM value chain—from project development and trading to influencing governance—to maintain fossil fuel production while claiming progress toward net-zero. It highlights systemic issues with the integrity of the credits they use, specifically in forestry and cookstove projects, and notes that neither company has a decarbonisation plan aligned with the Paris Agreement.

The document analyzes the rising trend of greenwashing litigation and regulatory enforcement against companies using carbon credits to claim carbon neutrality. It highlights a divergence between the European Union, UK, and Australia—where courts and regulators are increasingly skeptical of offsetting—and the United States, where outdated guidelines and judicial reluctance have created a more fragmented enforcement landscape. The briefing concludes that companies face growing financial and reputational risks and should shift from compensation-based claims to genuine internal emissions reductions.

The policy brief by Carbon Market Watch criticises the EU's CRCF carbon farming methodologies for agriculture, agroforestry, afforestation, and peatland rewetting. It argues that the framework lacks clear use cases, potentially allowing for problematic offsetting, and suffers from flawed quantification, weak additionality tests, and insufficient sustainability safeguards. The report warns that these deficiencies could lead to the overestimation of carbon removals and undermine the EU's climate goals and international reputation.

The document serves as a practical manual for identifying carbon projects within a specific country and evaluating their project documents. It explains the differences between Article 6.2 (decentralised), Article 6.4 (centralised), Voluntary Carbon Markets (VCM), and REDD+ programs. The guide directs users to specific digital tools—such as the UNEP Article 6 pipeline platform, the UC Berkeley Voluntary Registry Offsets Database, and the REDD+ Web Platform—to find project data. It also provides a framework for analysing project documents, focusing on geographic scope, actor roles, timelines, methodologies, and benefit-sharing arrangements, while highlighting industry quality criteria like additionality, leakage, and permanence.

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 explains the operational framework of the Article 6.4 Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (PACM), detailing the project lifecycle from prior consideration to credit issuance. It identifies key reporting documents, such as Project Design Documents (PDD) and the Sustainable Development Tool, and directs users to data sources like the UNEP Article 6 Pipeline and UNFCCC platforms. The guide also outlines accountability pathways, including a global grievance mechanism and an appeals process for stakeholders to report harms or challenge registration decisions.

Plan 1.5 criticizes the Climate Change Center for continuing a cookstove project in Myanmar after the 2021 military coup, arguing that the project provides administrative legitimacy to the junta and relies on fraudulent emission reductions. The statement highlights that the project operates in conflict-heavy regions like Sagaing and Magway, where monitoring is deemed unreliable, and claims that previous emission reductions were inflated by approximately 14.4 times.

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 Canadian Climate Institute argues that the memorandum of understanding between Alberta and Canada fails to effectively address the dysfunction of Alberta's industrial carbon pricing system. While the agreement introduces a price floor and hedging contracts to stabilize carbon credit markets, the Institute claims the price levels—$60 per tonne by 2030 and $110 by 2040—are too low to drive necessary investments or meet 2050 net-zero targets. Furthermore, the document warns that this agreement sets a low national benchmark that may encourage other provinces to weaken their own carbon pricing systems, potentially hindering Canada's overall climate policy effectiveness.

The Alberta-Canada Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) implementation agreement is criticized for cementing low stringency in industrial carbon pricing, which the author argues will limit emissions reductions and investment in low-carbon projects. While the MOU introduces a minimum market price and joint carbon contracts for difference to stabilize credit markets, the price floor of $60 per tonne by 2030 and $110 by 2040 is deemed too low to meet Canada's net-zero 2050 commitment. The author contends that this agreement sets a low de facto minimum standard for other provinces and that strengthening the system to $130 per tonne would have a negligible impact on oil sands competitiveness, adding less than 50 cents per barrel to the cost of Western Canada Select crude oil.

The report details the economic importance of Paraguay's livestock sector, which contributes approximately 12% of the national GDP, while highlighting its role as a major emitter of methane. It identifies a significant gap in productivity, noting that 85% of producers are small-scale and only 22% use improved genetics with technical assistance. The document argues that increasing efficiency—through genetic improvement, reproductive technologies, and regenerative pasture management—can simultaneously reduce emission intensity and increase profitability. It references Paraguay's NDC 3.0 goal to reduce emissions by 20% by 2030, with a specific target of mitigating 2,570.3 kt CO2eq through Good Livestock Production Practices. The report concludes with recommendations for a multi-sectoral roadmap, the development of green financial products like Brazil's Eco-Invest, and the creation of a permanent inter-institutional working group to monitor climate goals.

The report identifies the livestock sector as a primary economic pillar and a major source of methane emissions in Paraguay. It argues that increasing productivity through genetic improvement, regenerative pasture management, and silvopastoral systems can simultaneously reduce emission intensity and increase profitability. The document highlights the need for integrated public policies, innovative green financing, and better local data to meet Paraguay's NDC 3.0 goals.

The report argues that Brazil's primary agricultural policy instrument must be reoriented to align with national climate goals, specifically by restricting credit for illegal deforestation, expanding access for vulnerable family farmers, and reforming risk management programs like Proagro and PSR to ensure fiscal sustainability and environmental integrity.

The document argues that the traditional carbon offsetting model is fundamentally flawed and misleading, urging companies to adopt Beyond Value Chain Mitigation (BVCM). Unlike offsetting, which claims to 'cancel out' emissions, BVCM involves supporting external climate projects as a contribution to global goals without claiming carbon neutrality. The guide outlines the legal and reputational risks of offsetting—including a September 2026 EU ban on product-level offsetting claims—and provides a five-step implementation framework for BVCM. It suggests diversifying contributions beyond carbon credits into durable carbon removals (CDR), 'high-hanging fruit' technology research, and climate impact funds, while emphasizing that external action must not replace internal decarbonization aligned with a 1.5°C trajectory.

The report argues that the Article 6.4 Sustainable Development (SD) Tool is primarily procedural and fails to protect Indigenous Peoples and local communities due to an overreliance on national laws, narrow definitions of Indigenous status, and a restrictive approach to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). Geospatial analysis reveals that hundreds of projects in the Article 6 pipeline—including both new notifications and transitioning Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects—overlap with or are in close proximity to Indigenous and community lands, particularly in Asia. Documented cases in India, Kenya, Colombia, and Brazil demonstrate that these gaps have already led to involuntary resettlement, inadequate compensation, and long-term land conflicts.

In 2025, global coal capacity increased by 3.5% while production fell by 0.6%, as new plants are increasingly built for backup reliability rather than primary generation. This trend is most prominent in China and India, where renewables are meeting most new demand. While the number of countries developing coal projects fell to 32, political interventions in the US and energy security concerns in the EU have delayed planned closures. The EU continues a terminal decline in coal, with solar and wind producing more energy than all fossil fuels combined for the first time in 2025.

Coal mine methane (CMM) emissions remained steady at approximately 34.7 million tonnes in 2023 despite rising coal production, indicating a failure to align with the Global Methane Pledge. The report highlights a critical data gap, estimating that 89% of emissions were unreported to the UNFCCC in 2023 and that 87% of global production relies on generic emission factors rather than direct measurement. While satellite monitoring is increasing, it currently captures only 10% of hard coal production. Technically, 54-63% of CMM emissions could be mitigated by 2030 using proven technologies, with drainage station capture offering significant potential at negative net cost and ventilation air methane (VAM) oxidation capable of cutting nearly a quarter of emissions.

Ember recommends that governments mandate direct measurement and reporting for all coal mines, integrating satellite and independent data to identify super-emitters. The report advocates for banning venting from drainage systems, implementing binding reduction requirements for large emitters, and creating incentive mechanisms for ventilation air methane (VAM) mitigation. It further emphasizes the necessity of phasing down coal use and requiring comprehensive mine-closure plans to prevent ongoing emissions from decommissioned sites.

The report explores how a differentiated global carbon tax—where rates are based on a country's income classification—could reduce fossil fuel emissions and foster economic growth in Africa. Under the 'Sustainable Africa' scenario, the African economy is projected to be 58% larger by 2050 than the 'Current Path', with significant reductions in extreme poverty and near-total electricity access, despite a larger economy. The document also highlights Africa's potential as a carbon sink through reforestation and land management to attract investment and carbon credits.

Nigeria wastes an estimated 250–300 million standard cubic feet per day of gas through flaring and leakage, representing an annual economic loss of USD 1.2–2.5 billion. The policy brief argues that capturing at least 50% of this wasted methane could unlock USD 1.5–2 billion in annual value and create 50,000–80,000 technical jobs. The proposed strategy focuses on a phased approach from 2026 to 2033, prioritising measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) and the conversion of methane into power, CNG, and micro-LNG. To succeed, the document recommends establishing a Methane Governance Council to resolve regulatory fragmentation and integrating the National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency (NOSDRA) into the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) framework.