Search Climate Insights Directory

The report finds that most voluntary carbon market standards have inadequate or non-existent grievance mechanisms, leaving local communities vulnerable. While Gold Standard and the Green Climate Fund's Independent Redress Mechanism are identified as best practices, others like the Global Carbon Council lack any mechanism, and standards such as Verra, CAR, ACR, and ART suffer from shortcomings in accessibility, transparency, and independence.

The Lagos State Climate Adaptation and Resilience Plan (LCARP) identifies critical climate risks—sea-level rise, extreme rainfall, and extreme heat—and proposes a $9 billion portfolio of 33 projects to mitigate these threats. The plan emphasizes diversifying financing mechanisms beyond concessional debt to include blended finance, grants, and nature-based solutions, while recommending policy and governance reforms to attract private investment.

The report highlights a significant funding gap in the Canadian Prairies, where grey water infrastructure depreciation exceeded investments by nearly CAD 3 billion between 2017 and 2021. It argues that private capital can supplement government funding through outcome-based financing models and government incentives, provided that ethical considerations regarding land rights and Indigenous values are prioritized.

The document examines the role of Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) and Eco-DRR in enhancing disaster risk preparedness across Africa. It highlights that while Africa is highly vulnerable to climate hazards, government capacity and financing for disaster risk reduction (DRR) are severely lacking. The author proposes three primary opportunities for improvement: aligning climate, biodiversity, and disaster risk policies; developing blended and scalable financing solutions; and empowering local communities through natural resource management models. Practical examples from Uganda, Mozambique, Madagascar, and Malawi demonstrate how nature-based solutions, such as mangrove and bamboo restoration, can mitigate disasters while supporting livelihoods.

The We Mean Business Coalition welcomes the U.S. government's principles for high-integrity voluntary carbon markets, arguing that well-designed market mechanisms are essential for directing finance toward underfunded priorities like nature-based solutions. The author notes that nature-based solutions could provide 30% or more of the mitigation needed by 2030 but currently receive less than 10% of international climate finance. The document emphasizes that the U.S. approach aligns with the need for credible credits, public disclosure, and the prioritization of emission reductions within corporate value chains. It also highlights a decline in climate finance through voluntary carbon markets in 2023, which dropped by over $1 billion compared to 2022, urging other governments to follow the lead of the U.S., Colombia, and Singapore.

The document examines the three mechanisms of Article 6 (A6.2, A6.4, and A6.8) of the Paris Agreement, highlighting the tension between rapid operationalisation and the need for high-integrity standards to prevent greenwashing and human rights abuses. It details the specific sticking points for COP29, including transparency in bilateral trading (A6.2), the role of the Supervisory Body in the global market (A6.4), and the potential for non-market approaches (A6.8) to provide alternative climate finance. The briefing also analyzes the influence of these UN rules on the voluntary carbon market (VCM) and the controversies surrounding REDD+ credits and land-use offsets.

The report examines the infrastructure funding gap in Canada, specifically within the water sector of the Canadian Prairies, and proposes a shift toward natural infrastructure. It identifies several private financing instruments—including carbon and biodiversity credits, outcome-based financing, natural asset companies, and insurance mechanisms—while emphasizing the need for intermediary organizations to coordinate stakeholders and the importance of Indigenous involvement in the reconciliation process.

The analysis reveals a significant gap in climate action between large private and public companies, with private firms trailing in both the adoption of net zero targets and the publication of delivery plans. While 70% of the largest public companies have net zero targets, only 40% of the largest private companies have done so. Furthermore, only 20% of private companies with targets have published plans to deliver them, compared to 80% of public companies. Geographically, private companies in the EU and UK show higher adoption rates (75%) than those in the US (22%), while China has seen a slight increase from one to four companies with targets since 2022.

The report finds a substantial gap between the world's largest public and private companies regarding net zero commitments. While 70% of the largest public companies have set net zero targets, only 40% of the largest private companies have done so. Furthermore, private companies show a critical lack of integrity in their pledges; only 20% of those with net zero targets have published plans to achieve them, compared to 80% of public companies. The analysis highlights that high-emitting private sectors, particularly fossil fuels, are largely avoiding targets. The report argues that emerging regulations, such as the EU's CSRD and CSDDD, as well as California's SB 253 and SB 261, are essential to compel private companies to disclose emissions and adopt mandatory transition plans to mitigate transition risks.

The briefing criticizes ENGIE's 2025 climate plan for lacking a phase-out date for fossil gas and continuing expansion through new plants and long-term LNG contracts. While noting a slight increase in renewable energy targets to 95 GW by 2030, the author argues that ENGIE remains on a 'well below 2°C' trajectory rather than 1.5°C, citing a decarbonization goal of 2045 that contradicts IEA Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenarios. The document also highlights that CAPEX for fossil technologies remains nearly stable between the 2024-2026 and 2025-2027 periods and warns that reliance on 'green gases' and carbon credits may perpetuate fossil systems.

Carbon Market Watch (CMW) argues for increased stringency in the Article 6.4 mechanism, specifically regarding the permanence of carbon removals and the accountability of project participants. CMW proposes a minimum 100-year monitoring period for removals, the removal of options to cease monitoring based on vague evidence, and the implementation of a reversal risk assessment tool grounded in peer-reviewed science. The response also suggests a fee-based system to fund long-term monitoring and the ability to permanently ban participants who violate human rights or repeatedly cause avoidable reversals.

Reclaim Finance criticizes a statement released by the SBTi Board of Trustees on April 9, 2024, which suggested extending the use of environmental attribute certificates for Scope 3 emissions abatement. The organization asserts that this move contradicts existing SBTi policy, which limits carbon credits to long-term net-zero targets for residual emissions (up to 10%), and was made without consulting the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) or Scientific Advisory Group (SAG). Reclaim Finance warns that this decision threatens the scientific integrity of science-based targets and could facilitate greenwashing.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the SBTi Board of Trustees' decision to recognize carbon credits for abating scope 3 emissions violates scientific principles and governance processes. The organization claims this flexibility allows companies to appear climate-positive on paper while continuing to emit greenhouse gases, potentially dismantling the mitigation hierarchy that prioritizes deep internal emission reductions. Carbon Market Watch calls for the retraction of the decision, a public analysis of evidence regarding environmental attribute certificates, and a review of the SBTi's board delegation process.

The We Mean Business Coalition welcomes the Science Based Targets initiative's (SBTi) updated guidance allowing environmental attribute certificates, such as carbon credits, to be used for Scope 3 emissions. The Coalition argues that this reform provides companies with necessary clarity and tools to accelerate value chain decarbonization while increasing funding for climate projects in the Global South.

The report argues that Occidental Petroleum's (Oxy) climate strategy is misaligned with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. It finds that Oxy's net-zero targets are inadequate, focusing primarily on scope 1 and 2 emissions while ignoring the vast majority of its carbon footprint in scope 3. The analysis highlights a heavy overreliance on unproven direct air capture (DAC) technology, which the report claims is used as a 'licence to pollute' and a mechanism to prolong oil and gas extraction through enhanced oil recovery (EOR). The report further asserts that Oxy's 'net-zero oil' claims are scientifically invalid and that its lobbying efforts for government subsidies for carbon removals contradict its public climate commitments.

The 2024 Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor finds that while corporate climate targets are gradually improving, they remain largely insufficient to align with a 1.5°C pathway. The median 2030 emission reduction commitment for the 51 assessed companies is only 30-33% of full value chain emissions, falling short of the 43-48% required globally. The report highlights a critical lack of depth in scope 3 targets and warns that proposed flexibility mechanisms, such as the VCMI beta Scope 3 Flexibility Claim, could effectively nullify these commitments. It also identifies an over-reliance on 'false solutions' like bioenergy, carbon capture, and land-based carbon dioxide removals (CDR), particularly in the agrifood and fashion sectors. The authors argue for a transition from voluntary initiatives to formal accountability through mandatory regulation and accredited verification.

The report evaluates the Paris 2024 climate strategy, noting that while efforts in construction and food supply are robust, other sectors like transport and energy lack transparency and detailed methodology. It criticizes the evolution of public claims from 'carbon neutrality' to 'climate positive' as misleading and highlights a lack of transparency in carbon credit purchases. The authors argue that future games must downscale or decentralize to align with the 1.5°C goal and should avoid partnering with companies whose climate pathways are incompatible with the Paris Agreement.

The report analyzes the Paris 2024 climate strategy, noting that while efforts in construction and food procurement are robust, there is significant opacity regarding carbon credit purchases, energy sourcing, and the overall carbon budget. It criticizes the evolution of public communication from 'carbon neutrality' to 'climate positive' as misleading and highlights the incompatibility of many official sponsors with the Paris Agreement. The document argues that incremental improvements are insufficient and proposes a radical redesign of the Olympic model, such as distributing events globally to reduce international air travel and infrastructure needs.

The EU's Carbon Removals Certification Framework (CRCF) is criticized for failing to mandate 'corresponding adjustments,' allowing both companies and countries to claim the same emissions reductions. This 'double counting' risks displacing necessary climate action and contradicts the EU's own international stance on additionality and the rules of the Paris Agreement's Article 6.

The report analyzes Brazil's complex legislative framework for forest restoration, concluding that current policies are designed for property-scale rather than landscape-scale implementation. It identifies three essential factors for scaling up: permitting a variety of restoration typologies within a single project, breaking barriers between public and private land tenure, and integrating both mandatory and voluntary restoration areas. The authors argue that the ongoing revision of the National Plan for Native Vegetation Recovery (PLANAVEG) is a critical opportunity to implement these changes and leverage the carbon market to achieve climate and socioeconomic goals.