Search Climate Insights Directory

Carbon Market Watch argues that the draft Baseline standard for Article 6.4 mechanism methodologies fails to quantitatively demonstrate alignment with the Paris Agreement's long-term temperature goals. The organization criticizes the proposed 1% annual downward adjustment as insufficient to raise ambition over time and suggests adopting a 'Paris Goal Coefficient' to link baseline emissions directly to net-zero target dates. Additionally, it recommends that Best Available Technology (BAT) be revised at least every five years and that legally binding national or sub-national targets be incorporated into Business-As-Usual (BAU) scenarios regardless of the perceived sufficiency of implementation frameworks.

The report details RMI's engagement in a transition credit pilot for the SLTEC coal plant in the Philippines, proposing a structured four-phase approach—Project Screening, Defining Evaluation Scope, Pre-Feasibility Analysis, and Recommendations—to ensure project integrity and financial viability. It highlights the role of transition credits in filling financing gaps for early coal retirement and the necessity of rigorous baseline setting and clean energy replacement planning to avoid moral hazard and leakage.

The report outlines the commercial and climate imperatives for heavy industries to adopt carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies. It identifies synergies where industrial waste, infrastructure, and expertise can accelerate the scale-up of biogenic, geochemical, and synthetic CDR. The document provides a framework for monetization through carbon credits, green premiums, and government incentives, while warning against 'mitigation deterrence'—the risk that CDR replaces essential decarbonization efforts.

Enhanced rock weathering is identified as a scientifically sound carbon removal method that accelerates the natural breakdown of rocks like basalt and olivine to capture CO2. While it offers potential for large-scale deployment and soil improvement, it is currently deemed not ready for large-scale use due to high costs, unpredictable effectiveness, and complex monitoring requirements.

The document identifies seven key intervention areas in the clean-energy sector: electricity generation, transmission and distribution, on-grid access, off-grid access, clean cooking, knowledge sharing, and policy reform. While utility-scale renewable generation has grown significantly, transmission bottlenecks and affordability constraints for end-users remain critical hurdles. The brief argues that while energy access is a necessary enabler for economic growth, it does not guarantee it, necessitating user-focused designs and long-term policy reforms to ensure sustainable impacts.

Carbon Market Watch evaluates the ICVCM's recent decisions on cookstove methodologies, praising the rejection of legacy Kyoto Protocol methodologies and the conditional approval of the Gold Standard Metered methodology, while arguing that other approved methodologies like GS-TPDDTEC and VM0050 still contain loopholes regarding adoption and usage rates.

The document outlines a five-step process for assessing nature-based solutions (NbS), moving from system mapping and climate analysis to the quantification of benefits and the identification of financing structures. It emphasizes the use of systems thinking to capture multifunctional co-benefits that traditional 'grey' infrastructure often overlooks. The guide provides a toolbox of quantification and risk assessment tools and illustrates the application of the SAVi methodology through case studies in the Netherlands, Burkina Faso, Italy, Greece, Belgium, and Colombia.

The briefing outlines five essential characteristics for effective industrial carbon pricing in Canada: healthy credit markets, equity between companies, strategic revenue use, transparency, and policy certainty. It warns that current systems in several provinces are underperforming due to oversupply of credits and unfair performance standards, which could halve their effectiveness in reducing emissions if not addressed.

The document examines the systemic failures of carbon offsetting, highlighting that most credits—particularly those for forestry and renewable energy—lack additionality and environmental integrity. It argues that offsetting often leads to an overall increase in emissions by delaying necessary mitigation and allowing continued investment in high-emitting technologies. The briefing concludes that carbon avoidance and reduction offsets have no place in ambitious climate policies, recommending that priority be given to direct emissions cuts and non-market-based climate finance.

The article examines voluntary biodiversity credits (VBCs) as a tool to mobilize private investment for conservation, distinguishing them from regulatory offsets. It identifies significant barriers to adoption, including the lack of standardized, locally specific metrics and a weak return on investment for corporations. To address these, the author proposes hybrid models—such as combining VBCs with carbon credits or debt-for-nature swaps—to create tangible business value and financial stability. The document concludes that VBCs should complement existing mechanisms rather than stand alone until a robust regulatory framework and clear business case are established.

The report examines Arla's climate strategies, finding that its net-zero commitments fail to meet most UN recommendations and that its focus on technological solutions like biogas does not address its primary methane emissions. It further alleges that Arla engages in lobbying to derail EU climate legislation and uses misleading marketing campaigns to present its products as carbon neutral.

The document advocates for transition-specific alignment targets—sector-specific metrics like zero-emission vehicle sales—to overcome the limitations of traditional GHG emission reduction targets, particularly regarding scope 3 emissions. It identifies risks in current GHG reporting, such as creative accounting and inadequate 'spend method' calculations, and recommends that standard setters develop consistent definitions and sectoral pathways to integrate these targets into national regulations and voluntary frameworks.

The report analyzes marine geoengineering, dividing it into marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR) and marine solar radiation modification (SRM). It argues that these speculative technologies pose irreversible risks to ocean ecosystems and human rights, while facing significant monitoring and verification challenges. The authors contend that proposed deployment zones span every ocean basin, making the impacts inherently transboundary and potentially violating international law, including the CBD moratorium and UNCLOS.

The document critiques biodiversity offsets and credits, asserting that these mechanisms facilitate continued environmental destruction through 'greenwashing' and risk violating human rights. It argues that nature's complexity cannot be reduced to tradable units and suggests redirecting existing harmful subsidies toward indigenous-led conservation and direct grants instead of market-based instruments.

The document critiques biodiversity credits and offsets as illusory mechanisms that facilitate 'greenwashing' and allow destructive companies to avoid responsibility. It argues that these market-based tools simplify complex ecosystems into tradable units, often leading to human rights violations, land grabbing, and the displacement of local communities. The text suggests that instead of market mechanisms, biodiversity should be funded by redirecting harmful subsidies and supporting indigenous-led governance.

The document critiques biodiversity offsets and credits, describing them as 'false solutions' that facilitate continued environmental destruction through 'greenwashing'. It argues that these mechanisms simplify complex ecosystems into tradable units, often fail to achieve actual ecological restoration, and risk causing human rights violations, including land grabbing and forced displacement of indigenous communities. The text advocates for transformative changes and direct funding—such as redirecting harmful subsidies—over market-based commodification of nature.

The document critiques biodiversity offsets and credits as 'false solutions' that facilitate greenwashing and human rights violations while failing to restore ecosystems. It argues that these mechanisms allow companies to avoid responsibility for environmental destruction and suggests that funding for biodiversity should instead come from redirecting harmful subsidies and providing direct grants to indigenous-led initiatives.

The document argues that carbon markets are 'false climate solutions' that enable big polluters to continue emitting greenhouse gases through 'greenwashing' while causing land grabbing and human rights violations in the Global South. It details how carbon credits are generated from nature-based solutions and 'techno-fixes', warns communities about deceptive contracts and the failure of industry 'safeguards', and provides a framework for resistance based on climate justice and the right to say no.

The document argues that carbon markets are 'false climate solutions' designed by polluters to maintain profitable systems of capitalism and neocolonialism. It explains how carbon credits are generated through nature-based solutions (NBS) and technological fixes, which often lead to land grabbing and the violation of indigenous rights. The guide provides a framework for communities to identify 'red flags' in contracts, exercise their right to say no, and employ strategies of international solidarity to oppose the commodification of nature.

The document argues that carbon markets are a continuation of colonial and capitalist systems that allow major polluters to avoid reducing emissions through 'greenwashing'. It explains how carbon credits are generated—often through flawed calculations in nature-based solutions or technological fixes—and details the risks to communities, including land grabbing and the violation of indigenous rights. The guide provides practical advice for communities to identify predatory contracts, exercise their right to say no, and seek alternatives like community forest management and agroecology.