Search Climate Insights Directory

Carbon Market Watch asserts that Article 6 of the Paris Agreement must move beyond zero-sum offsetting to achieve an overall mitigation in global emissions (OMGE). The author critiques two proposed options—relying on market forces and using conservative baselines—as insufficient. Instead, the document advocates for the automatic partial cancellation of credits, arguing that this mechanism ensures net atmospheric benefits and can increase carbon market prices and project owner profits.

Carbon Market Watch critiques the TSVCM's objective of scaling the voluntary carbon market (VCM), arguing that growth should not be the primary goal and that financial speculation through secondary markets and futures contracts does not benefit the climate. The organization emphasizes the need for a truly independent governance body, free from industry associations and conflicts of interest, and calls for more rigorous Core Carbon Principles (CCPs). Key recommendations include excluding ex-ante and retroactive crediting, requiring a minimum permanence timeframe of at least 100 years, and ensuring that credits used for offsetting include corresponding adjustments to national reporting to avoid double claiming.

Carbon Market Watch argues against the transition of CDM credits to the Paris Agreement era, warning that up to 4 billion "hot air" credits could flood the market. The organization advocates for a clean break from the Kyoto Protocol, requiring all CDM projects to be reassessed against strict quality criteria. To enable climate ambition under Article 6, the submission proposes the use of conservative baselines, an automatic partial cancellation rate of credits to ensure overall global emission reductions, and the restriction of carbon markets to the disbursement of results-based climate finance rather than zero-sum offsetting.

Carbon Market Watch defends its investigation into Colombian forestry projects, arguing that these projects produce 'hot air' credits that allow fossil fuel companies to avoid paying national carbon taxes. The organization refutes Verra's claims that its methodology was flawed, asserting that multiple assessment methods—including national reference levels and Ministry of Environment estimates—confirm the overestimation of emission reductions. It further contends that Verra's claims regarding community benefits lack transparency and that current auditing processes have failed to ensure environmental integrity.

The report analyzes the Mataven and Kaliawiri REDD+ projects in Colombia, finding they generated approximately 21 million more carbon credits than justified by official government reference values. These 'hot air' credits were used by companies, primarily Primax Colombia SAS, to avoid paying the national carbon tax, leading to an estimated US$62 million in potential forgone tax revenues. The document attributes this to a system failure involving conflicts of interest for verification bodies, lack of stringency from standards like Verra (VCS) and ProClima, and insufficient enforcement by the Colombian Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development.

A policy brief by Carbon Market Watch analyzing how the Matavén and Kaliawiri REDD+ projects in Colombia used artificially high baselines to generate millions of excess carbon credits. These credits were used by companies, primarily Primax Colombia SAS, to avoid paying the national carbon tax, leading to an estimated $33 million loss in state revenue from these two projects alone. The report highlights systemic failures involving project promoters, verification bodies, and the Colombian Ministry of Environment.

Power Forward 4.0 finds that 60% of Fortune 500 companies have set at least one climate or energy target, a 12-percentage-point increase since 2017. While GHG reduction targets are most common (54%) and Science-Based Targets (SBTs) have increased sixfold, only 20% of the Fortune 500 have set or committed to an SBT. The report highlights a rise in net-zero commitments (17%) and 100% renewable energy targets (58 companies), though it notes significant gaps in the financial, fossil fuel, and retail sectors. Despite progress, the report argues that voluntary action is insufficient and calls for federal and state policies, such as carbon pricing, to align the US private sector with the Paris Agreement and the US Nationally Determined Contribution.

The briefing examines the risks and requirements for corporate financing of Nature Based Solutions (NBS) in the context of net-zero commitments. It proposes a shift from traditional offsetting—where companies might choose to pay for reductions elsewhere rather than reducing their own emissions—to a 'counterbalancing' approach. Under this model, companies must first comply with the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) to ensure they are on a 1.5°C trajectory across Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions before using NBS credits. On the supply side, the document advocates for the 'jurisdictional approach' over project-based credits to better manage risks like leakage, permanence, and additionality, highlighting the ART/TREES standard as a robust framework for ensuring environmental and social integrity.

The report examines the legal landscape for (agro)forestry in Côte d’Ivoire, highlighting that while the state aims for 20% forest cover by 2030, land tenure insecurity remains a primary risk. It details the distinctions between land titles, land certificates, and customary rights, noting that only Ivorian individuals, the State, and public authorities can hold land titles. The analysis emphasizes that investors should prioritize contracts with land certificate holders to avoid the legal uncertainty associated with customary rights, which can lead to eviction. It also explores the potential for investors to own planted trees and benefit from carbon credits through specific agreements, though it notes that carbon regulations are still being finalized.

The document critiques carbon offsetting as a "cheap way out" that often lacks environmental integrity and instead promotes a "contribution model." Under this model, companies finance climate projects without claiming the resulting emission reductions as their own, allowing for more transparent reporting of both positive and negative climate impacts.

The document examines the role of community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) in combating corruption. While these efforts can reduce local-level bribery and increase transparency, they often fail to address 'institutional capture'—where elite interests manipulate state policies for private gain. Using a case study of rosewood logging in Madagascar's Makira Natural Park, the authors demonstrate that high-value resources can drive national-level corruption that overrides local conservation efforts. The briefing recommends a multi-level approach that integrates local social accountability with national-level democratic reforms and political economy analysis.

Carbon Market Watch expresses significant concerns regarding the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets' blueprint, stating that it risks creating a speculative financial market that benefits the financial sector more than the climate. The organization argues that scaling the market without first addressing systemic integrity issues, such as the lack of transparency and the use of low-quality offsets, could lead to widespread greenwashing and a net increase in global greenhouse gas emissions. It specifically opposes the use of biological carbon sinks for offsets due to non-permanence and measurement uncertainties, and rejects the introduction of core carbon spot and futures contracts as a means of increasing opacity.

The report identifies significant economic potential in South Africa's waste sector, particularly through the transition toward a circular economy. It highlights the City of Cape Town as a primary hub for waste beneficiation due to its high landfill gate fees and substantial investments in material recovery facilities. Key growth drivers include the 2020 National Waste Management Strategy, new Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regulations, and provincial landfill restrictions on organic waste. While the plastics and e-waste sectors show strong potential for virgin material replacement and national processing, challenges such as inadequate source separation, data gaps, and the volatility of virgin plastic prices persist.

The report by Friends of the Earth International critiques 'false solutions' to biodiversity loss and climate change, which it defines as market-based mechanisms that commodify nature. It argues that these solutions—such as carbon credits and biodiversity offsets—allow corporations to continue polluting through 'compensation' while stripping local and indigenous communities of their land rights. The document details a four-phase process of commodification where nature is redefined as 'natural capital' and 'ecosystem services.' It concludes that true solutions must address the root causes of ecological destruction by challenging capitalist accumulation and prioritizing social, gender, and environmental justice.

The report argues that 'false solutions' to environmental crises are characterized by the financialisation of nature, where ecosystems are treated as 'natural capital' and traded as commodities. These mechanisms, such as carbon credits and biodiversity offsets, allow corporations to continue polluting by paying for compensation elsewhere, often leading to the violation of Indigenous and local community rights. The document contrasts these with 'real solutions' based on grassroots power, social and gender justice, and the dismantling of capitalist accumulation.

The report introduces a four-step blueprint for corporate climate action: accounting and disclosing emissions, reducing value chain emissions via science-based targets, quantifying a financial commitment by pricing remaining emissions, and investing that commitment into further reductions, climate innovation, and high-quality carbon credits. It argues that current 'footprint-based' approaches are insufficient and advocates for a forward-looking model that integrates nature-based solutions and policy advocacy to achieve a net-zero global economy.

The 2020 assessment of NYDF Goal 9 reveals that while nearly USD 4.7 billion in results-based finance has been committed since 2010, only 40 percent has been disbursed. The report highlights a significant gap in funding for the implementation phase of REDD+ activities and notes that carbon markets have channeled USD 2.5 billion to forests over 20 years. While private sector demand for forest carbon offsets is rising among airlines and petroleum companies, current carbon prices remain too low to meet Paris Agreement objectives. Additionally, the report details various domestic compliance schemes in countries like Australia, Canada, and China that allow for forest carbon credits.

The document critiques 'net zero' targets as a façade for continued pollution, highlighting the risks of relying on unproven carbon removal technologies and the injustice of shifting sequestration burdens to the global South. It calls for 'Real Zero' emissions, emphasizing the need for developed nations to take greater responsibility and implement systemic changes in energy, agriculture, and transport.

The document establishes a framework for evaluating 'high-quality' carbon credits across six quality objectives: robust GHG impact determination, avoidance of double counting, addressing non-permanence, facilitating the transition to net zero, strong institutional arrangements, and positive environmental and social impacts. It details specific criteria for each, such as additionality, corresponding adjustments under the Paris Agreement, and the avoidance of carbon lock-in, to guide buyers in a complex market.

WWF International provides a framework for corporate forest and climate goal-setting, advocating for a mitigation hierarchy that prioritizes avoiding and reducing footprints before pursuing compensation. The guide argues that protecting existing forests is significantly more effective for climate mitigation than tree planting, noting that preventing the loss of one hectare of mature forest avoids approximately 100 tons of carbon, whereas tropical reforestation sequesters only about 3 tons per hectare annually. It further recommends that companies align carbon credit purchases with specific quality criteria and national commitments (NDCs) and pursue transformational change through improved land tenure and multi-stakeholder initiatives.