Search Climate Insights Directory

The report warns that 'unabated' coal phase-down strategies—including co-firing, retrofitting with CCS, and using carbon credits—risk extending the life of fossil fuel infrastructure and providing incomplete emission reductions. It urges public development banks to avoid these 'false solutions' to ensure public funds support rapid coal retirement rather than prolonging coal usage.

The document outlines the two primary types of carbon markets—cap-and-trade and carbon crediting systems—and distinguishes between compliance markets, which are based on obligatory targets, and voluntary markets used for corporate social responsibility. It highlights the role of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement in establishing new international market mechanisms. The text critically assesses carbon offsetting, particularly REDD+ forestry projects, noting that they often generate exaggerated credits and lack adequate safeguards. It concludes that carbon credits cannot scientifically be proven to reliably neutralise one tonne of CO2 and recommends that companies move toward a 'climate contribution' or 'beyond value chain mitigation' (BVCM) model to provide climate finance without making misleading offsetting claims.

The report identifies financial barriers as the most severe challenge to green building implementation in Indonesia, citing a lack of dedicated financing instruments and high interest rates. While national regulations like GR 16/2021 have introduced green building standards, they are limited to very large buildings and exclude the residential sector, which accounts for 83% of building energy demand. A case study in Semarang demonstrates that combining building material retrofits with high-efficiency air conditioning can reduce cooling energy use by 32% to 44%, potentially saving USD 3.19 million annually. However, meeting green building mandates in Semarang over the next decade is estimated to require USD 223.7 million in investment.

The report analyzes Brazil's complex restoration landscape, arguing that current policies are designed for property-scale rather than landscape-scale implementation. It identifies three critical factors for scaling: permitting a variety of restoration typologies within single projects, overcoming land tenure uncertainties on public lands, and integrating mandatory legal obligations with voluntary restoration activities. The authors suggest that the ongoing revision of the National Plan for Native Vegetation Recovery (PLANAVEG) is a key opportunity to implement these changes.

The report analyzes the challenges of scaling up forest and native vegetation restoration in Brazil, arguing that current public policies are designed for individual rural properties rather than landscape-scale initiatives. It identifies three essential factors for success: the adoption of multiple complementary restoration typologies, the integration of both public and private lands, and the synergy between mandatory legal restoration and voluntary initiatives. The authors highlight the potential of carbon markets and payment for environmental services to drive these efforts, while noting that regulatory contradictions—particularly regarding environmental licensing for native silviculture—remain significant hurdles.

The report finds that while the VCM is viewed as a strategic tool for achieving net zero and incentivizing internal decarbonization, its growth is stymied by a lack of recognition from climate goal standard-setters and perceived reputational risks. Survey data suggests that if standard-setters like the SBTi recognized carbon credits and regulatory claims codes were adopted, corporate spending and the setting of ambitious emissions targets would increase significantly.

The document explains the distinction between cap-and-trade systems (ETS) and baseline-and-credit mechanisms, detailing the evolution from Kyoto Protocol markets to the Paris Agreement's Article 6. It critiques carbon offsetting for enabling greenwashing and failing to reduce absolute emissions, while highlighting the specific shortcomings of CORSIA and REDD+. The guide advocates for a shift toward a 'climate contribution' approach where credits are cancelled without offsetting claims to support global climate action.

The document explains the distinction between emissions trading systems (ETS) and carbon credit attribution mechanisms, detailing the evolution from the Kyoto Protocol to the Paris Agreement. It critically assesses the effectiveness of various market mechanisms, including Article 6.2 and 6.4, CORSIA, and REDD+, highlighting systemic risks such as 'hot air', double counting, and greenwashing. The guide argues against the use of offsets for carbon neutrality and proposes a 'climate contribution' approach instead.

The document explains the difference between cap-and-trade systems and carbon credit mechanisms, detailing the evolution from the Kyoto Protocol to the Paris Agreement. It critiques carbon offsetting as a tool for greenwashing and argues for a shift toward 'climate contributions' where credits are retired without claims of neutrality.

The document serves as a comprehensive primer on carbon markets, distinguishing between emissions trading systems (cap-and-trade) and credit-based mechanisms. It details the evolution from the Kyoto Protocol's mechanisms to the Paris Agreement's Article 6, while critically assessing the risks of carbon offsetting, such as 'greenwashing' and the 'hot air' problem. The guide also examines the CORSIA framework for aviation and the private certification standards of the voluntary market, ultimately advocating for a shift from offsetting to a 'climate contribution' model.

The document argues that traditional carbon offsetting and 'neutrality' claims are scientifically illogical and misleading. It proposes the BVCM model, where companies provide climate finance as a complement to—not a substitute for—internal decarbonisation. It outlines prerequisites for credible claims, including science-based targets, deforestation-free commitments, and Paris-aligned lobbying, while evaluating different internal carbon pricing methods and investment vehicles like impact funds and direct financing.

The report identifies a significant global gap in healthcare electrification, with an estimated 1 billion people lacking reliable power at local facilities and a total investment need of USD 4.9 billion. While solar PV systems dominate current initiatives, the report argues for a shift from short-term procurement models (EPC) to long-term service-based models (ESCO) to ensure sustainable operation and maintenance (O&M). Key recommendations include developing country-specific taxonomies, enhancing inter-sectoral coordination between health and energy ministries, and leveraging climate finance and decentralized renewable energy certificates (D-RECs) to bridge the funding gap.

The document describes CORSIA as a global mechanism designed to achieve "carbon-neutral growth" by requiring airlines to offset CO2 emissions that exceed a set baseline. It criticizes the scheme for its low ambition, specifically the lowering of the baseline to 85% of 2019 emissions for the period 2024-2035. The author argues that CORSIA is ineffective because it is voluntary until 2027, ignores non-CO2 impacts, and relies on low-priced, low-quality carbon credits that do not incentivize actual emission reductions.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the Gold Standard's proposed methodology for coal plant phase-outs is insufficient due to unpredictable economic and political factors, weak eligibility criteria for renewable energy, and inadequate financial and emissions accounting. The organization recommends stricter timelines for developed economies, more rigorous additionality assessments, and the inclusion of construction emissions to avoid the issuance of low-quality credits.

The briefing argues that conventional neoclassical financial analysis fails to account for long-term non-financial risks and externalities, often leading to underinvestment in sustainable transport. It proposes an 'integrated financial analysis' where positive externalities—such as health benefits and time savings—are monetized and converted into revenue streams. Using a case study of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system in Bandung, Indonesia, the paper demonstrates that while the project is financially unviable based on ticket sales alone, it becomes viable if a small fraction (12% to 19%) of its societal externalities are internalized. The author recommends lowering social discount rates to better incentivize long-term sustainable investments.

The report finds that gender-responsive climate blended finance is scarce, with only 22% of climate deals in Convergence's database meeting the criteria. In the energy sector, gender focus is more prevalent in off-grid projects (28%) than on-grid projects (11%), largely due to the domestic nature of off-grid energy needs. The document highlights the role of concessional capital, technical assistance (TA), and performance-based incentives in driving gender outcomes. It provides case studies of vehicles like the Green Guarantee Company and Catalyst Fund to illustrate how blended finance can support women-led enterprises and increase female labor participation in technical roles. Key recommendations include deploying TA alongside financial incentives and utilizing equity to influence gender policies at early stages.

The 2024 report by Climate Policy Initiative/PUC-Rio examines the progress of the Brazilian Forest Code's implementation. While CAR registration is consolidated nationwide, the analysis phase remains a critical bottleneck, with only 15% of registries having initiated analysis and 3.3% concluded. The report highlights the adoption of automation tools like 'CAR Digital' in Mato Grosso and the 'Análise Dinamizada' by the Brazilian Forest Service (SFB) to accelerate validation. It also notes advancements in the PRA, with new states like Espírito Santo, Goiás, and Tocantins regulating the program. However, significant challenges persist, including low registry quality, communication gaps with landowners, and legal disputes regarding the Atlantic Forest biome.

The document details restoration monitoring efforts across four countries. In Brazil, the Brazilian Restoration and Reforestation Observatory (BRRO) tracks progress toward climate agreements using a multi-stakeholder platform and satellite data. Kenya has developed a monitoring framework with 30 indicators integrated into its 2024 National Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Strategy. Burkina Faso utilizes the ONEDD platform for centralized data sharing among government and NGO partners. Vietnam employs the FORMIS system for forest status monitoring, though it faces challenges with data accessibility and consistency.

The 2024 Forest Declaration Assessment finds that the world is off track to meet 2030 goals to stop and reverse deforestation and degradation. In 2023, 6.37 million hectares of forest were permanently lost, with tropical humid primary forest loss 38% higher than required to be on track. Key drivers include unsustainable production of agricultural commodities and extractive industries, often fueled by demand from industrialized nations like China and the EU. While some progress is noted in forest governance and the expansion of protected areas, significant gaps remain in funding for Indigenous peoples and local communities. The report argues for a radical shift from exploitative consumption models toward circularity and rights-based governance to safeguard critical ecosystems.

The 2024 Forest Declaration Assessment finds that the world is far from meeting its 2030 goals to stop and reverse deforestation and degradation. In 2023, 6.37 million hectares of forest were permanently lost globally, with tropical regions in Africa and Asia failing to meet their targets. Primary forest loss remains alarmingly high, and forest degradation affects an area ten times larger than that of permanent deforestation. The report identifies unsustainable production and consumption—particularly of agricultural commodities, fossil fuels, and minerals—as primary drivers. While some progress is noted in countries like Brazil and Indonesia, and through new EU regulations like the EUDR, the report highlights a massive gap between 'green' and 'grey' financing, with trillions in harmful subsidies continuing to drive ecosystem loss. It emphasizes the critical role of Indigenous peoples and local communities, who face significant violence and limited direct access to funding despite their role as forest guardians.