Search Climate Insights Directory

The document is a reporting guide designed to help companies transparently communicate their beyond value chain mitigation (BVCM) strategies. It is intended as a complement to existing frameworks like the CDP Climate Change 2023 Questionnaire and CSRD ESRS E1, rather than a standalone report. The template requires companies to disclose financial investments in BVCM, the specific activities supported, the quality of their engagement—including considerations of climate justice and additionality—and how they communicate these actions to stakeholders to avoid misleading claims.

This guide by Carbon Market Watch establishes a reporting framework for companies to disclose their beyond value chain mitigation (BVCM) activities. It emphasizes that BVCM claims must be predicated on demonstrated climate leadership, including deep internal decarbonization and Paris-aligned policy engagement. The template requires detailed financial data on BVCM investments, the nature of the activities supported, and the quality of engagement regarding climate justice and additionality.

Carbon Market Watch outlines ten key elements for effective carbon pricing, arguing that such systems must be integrated into a broader policy mix, utilize absolute declining caps, and eliminate free allocations and offsets. The briefing emphasizes the need for transparency, the reinvestment of revenues into climate action and vulnerable communities, and the use of carbon border levies to prevent leakage without protecting polluting industries. It concludes that carbon pricing is a tool to be used alongside regulations and democratic engagement, rather than a standalone solution for decarbonization.

Carbon Market Watch argues that current corporate net-zero claims are often vague and lack sufficient action, frequently excluding scope 3 emissions and relying excessively on offsets. The organization proposes a rigorous framework for net-zero targets that requires full-scope emission coverage, absolute reduction targets, and transparency regarding lobbying activities. It suggests that the UN facilitate a standardized global repository for reporting and advocates for a transition from voluntary actions to strict international and national regulations to prevent greenwashing.

The report argues that carbon pricing is a vital but insufficient tool for climate action and must be integrated into a broader policy mix. It advocates for absolute emission caps, the elimination of free allowances, and the reinvestment of revenues into public climate benefits. The document strongly warns against the use of carbon offsets and credits, which it claims undermine environmental integrity and allow polluters to avoid real reductions. It also addresses the 'carbon leakage' myth, suggesting that the risks are often overestimated and used to justify policies that lock in polluting industries.

The Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor (CCRM) 2025 finds that corporate climate action is frequently treated as a marketing exercise rather than a business model redesign. While some companies like Inditex and Adidas have improved their target setting, the report highlights widespread 'creative accounting' and greenwashing. Key issues include the use of unbundled Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) in tech and fashion, the conflation of land-based carbon removals with emission reductions in agrifood, and the use of unsubstantiated carbon credits to claim carbon neutrality. The document argues that voluntary standards are insufficient and calls for stringent government regulation, specifically citing EU directives like the CSRD and CSDDD, to mandate transparent reporting and ban product-level carbon neutral claims.

Carbon Market Watch urges the CMA to provide additional guidance to the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body to ensure that standards for removals and methodologies are science-based and transparent. Key recommendations include mandating independent third-party reviews every five years starting in 2028, establishing a maximum risk threshold for project eligibility based on science, and ensuring that performance-based additionality tests are as stringent as financial additionality tests.

Carbon Market Watch urges the Kenyan government to completely rewrite the climate change amendment bill 2023, citing pervasive ambiguity and vague terminology. The organization argues that the current wording could lead to misinterpretation, potentially harming human rights and the environment. Specific concerns include the lack of clear definitions for actors in the voluntary carbon market, the failure to distinguish between 'aiming' for reductions and actually delivering them, and insufficient requirements for the permanence of carbon removals. The response also highlights a need for greater transparency, specifically calling for the public availability of the Registry and community development agreements.

The report evaluates the Greenhouse Gas Protocol's Land Sector and Removals Standard (LSRS), a framework for corporate accounting of land-based emissions and carbon removals. While praising the mandate for separate accounting of emissions and removals, the authors identify critical weaknesses: the voluntary nature of removals reporting and a provision that may allow the SBTi's FLAG Guidance—which permits netting—to take precedence. The analysis also criticizes the inclusion of enhanced oil and gas recovery, the lack of mandatory measurement-based quantification, and loopholes in 'physical traceability' via non-proportional mass balance. The report concludes with recommendations to make removals reporting mandatory, exclude fossil fuel recovery, and assert the LSRS's primacy over other target-setting frameworks.

The report argues that while the EU ETS has halved emissions in key sectors, it remains structurally oversupplied and hampered by free allocation subsidies. It advocates for the total elimination of free allowances, the expansion of the system to cover all international aviation and shipping, and the rejection of carbon offsets and removals. The document emphasizes that the Market Stability Reserve (MSR) must be preserved to maintain a strong carbon price signal and that revenues should be redirected from fossil fuel subsidies toward a 'people first' transition.

Carbon Market Watch (CMW) outlines recommendations for COP27 to ensure transparency, integrity, and climate ambition in the implementation of Article 6. Key proposals include the definitive exclusion of emission avoidance from eligible outcomes, the rejection of tonne-year accounting for removals, and the prohibition of using Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) toward Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). CMW emphasizes that all reporting and registry data should be public, machine-readable, and comprehensive to prevent double counting and ensure accountability.

Carbon Market Watch advises the CMA against adopting the Supervisory Body's text on removals under the Article 6.4 mechanism without further guidance to ensure environmental integrity. The organization calls for stricter definitions of removal durability, the creation of a science-based risk assessment tool, mandatory post-crediting monitoring, and clear rules on avoidable reversals and buffer pool replenishment. Regarding methodology development, it suggests requiring proponents to prove carbon credit revenues were a significant income source and conducting additionality analyses for different activity types.

The briefing examines the EU's Carbon Removals Certification Framework (CRCF), specifically criticizing the Delegated Act for permanent removals. It argues that the current methodologies for Direct Air Capture with Storage (DACCS), Biomass with capture and storage (BioCCS), and Biochar fail to account for environmental knock-on effects, lack proper monitoring and liability, and breach the 'Do No Significant Harm' principle. The author warns that these flaws could lead to certified activities increasing atmospheric emissions and undermine the EU's path to climate neutrality, potentially exposing buyers to greenwashing accusations if integrated into the EU Emission Trading System or voluntary markets.

The statement argues that the draft Delegated Act lacks necessary safeguards regarding indirect land-use change, livestock emissions, and long-term carbon storage. It calls for the reinstatement of additionality criteria, the introduction of liability mechanisms for peatlands, and the inclusion of social safeguards to prevent land speculation.

The report by Carbon Market Watch outlines a framework for 'carbon pricing done right,' arguing that such systems must be integrated into broader policy packages and based on strict emission caps to be effective. It emphasizes the 'polluter pays principle,' warning against free allocations and offsets, which it claims can weaken price signals and lead to greenwashing. The document advocates for transparency, the reinvestment of revenues into climate action and vulnerable communities, and a cautious approach to carbon leakage and border adjustment mechanisms to avoid protectionism while ensuring climate justice.

The report by Carbon Market Watch provides a framework for implementing 'right' carbon pricing, arguing that such systems must be integrated into a broader policy mix, feature declining emission caps, and avoid loopholes like free allocations and carbon offsets. It emphasizes the need for transparency, the reinvestment of revenues into climate action and vulnerable communities, and the use of carbon border adjustments to prevent leakage while maintaining equity.

A coalition of NGOs expresses concerns regarding the European Commission's Expert Group on Carbon Removal, specifically citing a lack of gender and sectoral balance in meeting agendas, the underrepresentation of scientific and environmental voices in the group's composition, and a lack of transparency in documentation and agenda-setting. The signatories argue that the group must address fundamental policy questions regarding the EU carbon budget and the prevention of offsetting emissions with removals, rather than focusing solely on technical methodologies.

Carbon Market Watch proposes a comprehensive strengthening of the EU ETS, including increasing the Linear Reduction Factor to reach zero emissions by 2040 and increasing the Market Stability Reserve intake rate to 36% from 2024. The organization advocates for the full auctioning of emission allowances, earmarking 100% of revenues for climate action, and extending the system to include international maritime transport and waste incineration. Conversely, it argues against including road transport and buildings in the ETS and opposes the inclusion of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) credits.

The report argues that climate change will increasingly exacerbate risks to US national security by intensifying physical impacts and mounting geopolitical tensions over the energy transition. It identifies a likely increase in cross-border conflicts over water and migration, strategic competition in the Arctic, and the risk of unilateral solar geoengineering. The document highlights 11 highly vulnerable countries and two regions (Central Africa and Pacific island states) where climate-induced instability may necessitate increased US diplomatic, humanitarian, and military resources. It also notes that current global policies are insufficient to meet Paris Agreement goals, leading to competition over critical minerals and technologies.

The Climate Social Science Network has listed a group of scholars available for media consultation during COP 26. These experts, some attending in Glasgow and others available remotely, provide expertise across several key climate themes including climate finance, loss and damage, carbon markets, and the political dynamics of climate obstruction.