Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that the EU ETS1 is fit for purpose until 2035, after which a supply-demand mismatch for allowances may emerge. It strongly warns that integrating international carbon credits (Article 6) or carbon removals into the ETS would undermine the carbon price incentive, risk emissions mitigation avoidance, and divert investment away from domestic decarbonisation. For the upcoming ETS2, the brief recommends allowing the market to function for several years before making adjustments due to high price uncertainty. It also cautions against merging ETS1 and ETS2 due to differences in market actor price sensitivity and suggests maintaining national targets beyond 2030 to support the ETS.

The report finds that the tech sector is facing a "climate strategy crisis" as soaring energy demands from AI and the use of outdated market-based accounting methodologies undermine the integrity of corporate climate targets. While some companies like Google and Microsoft are pioneering 24/7 hourly renewable electricity matching, others like Amazon and Meta advocate for looser accounting rules through the Emissions First Partnership. The analysis reveals that absolute location-based emissions for all five companies increased from 2019 to 2023, and critical transitions—such as decarbonising third-party data centres and hardware supply chains—remain largely neglected or poorly reported.

The Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor (v5.0) establishes a framework to distinguish genuine corporate climate leadership from greenwashing. It assesses companies across four pillars: comprehensive GHG emissions disclosure (Scopes 1, 2, and 3), the alignment of emission reduction targets with 1.5°C pathways, the implementation of sector-specific transitions, and the scaling of durable carbon dioxide removals (CDR). The guidance emphasizes that net-zero claims are misleading without deep absolute reductions and argues against the use of standalone Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) and traditional offsetting in favor of 'climate contributions' and millennial-scale durable CDR.

The report evaluates the use of bio-based materials from agricultural and forestry residues as a mechanism for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) in the building sector. Using BEAM life cycle assessment software, it estimates a cumulative global carbon removal capacity of 3.6 Gt CO2 by 2050, with an additional 16.5 Gt CO2 in avoided emissions. The analysis highlights that while non-timber biomass offers significant potential, the integration of mass timber could increase storage by fivefold. Implementation is hindered by challenges in carbon accounting, durability, and building code compliance, though emerging policies in the EU, Canada, and the US are beginning to incentivize biogenic carbon storage.

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 NewClimate Institute assesses the draft SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard (CNZS) v2.0, noting improvements in target boundaries and scope 2 emissions requirements while calling for stricter rules on indirect mitigation, more frequent validation renewals, and the inclusion of activity-level alignment targets.

Carbon Market Watch warns that the European Commission is considering "loopholes" to weaken the EU's 2040 climate target, including the use of international carbon credits and carbon removals. The organization argues that such measures would undermine domestic emissions reductions, repeat past failures of the EU Emissions Trading System, and contradict the recommendations of the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change, which suggests a 90-95% emissions cut through domestic action alone.

The report analyzes the first 149 companies to adopt SBTi FLAG targets, finding that while uptake is rapid—particularly in Europe and the food and beverage sector—mitigation plans are uneven. Most companies focus on agricultural emissions reduction and food waste, but few engage in forest management or biochar. The report highlights the role of FLAG targets in accelerating no-deforestation commitments and identifies the need for more robust transition plans as target deadlines approach.

The report asserts that geoengineering is not an unregulated frontier but is subject to restrictive international laws, including a de facto moratorium by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and regulations under the London Convention/London Protocol (LC/LP). It warns that a proliferation of outdoor experiments, driven by voluntary carbon markets and recent COP29 decisions, threatens biodiversity and human rights. The author calls for a ban on outdoor experiments and the establishment of an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering.

The briefing criticizes the EU's draft methodologies for the Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming Framework (CRCF), specifically regarding the 'mandatory biodiversity co-benefit' criterion. It argues that the results-based approach relies on circular and weak indicators, such as soil organic carbon (SOC), while the activity-based approach incorrectly presumes biodiversity gains without considering farm-specific contexts. The author calls for the adoption of more robust, science-based indicators, a delay in publishing methodologies to align with the Soil Monitoring Law, and the inclusion of a review clause to ensure environmental integrity.

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 report argues that the U.S. needs approximately 1 billion metric tons of permanent CDR annually by 2050 to reach net zero, but current policies are insufficient. It introduces an Innovation Technology Framework that categorizes technology development into R&D, Early Output, and Commercialization stages, each requiring different policy levers: lowering costs, improving access to finance, reducing project development time, and removing ecosystem barriers. The authors recommend tripling DOE CDR R&D funding, implementing a technology-neutral production tax credit for the Early Output phase, and transitioning toward long-term regulatory drivers like a carbon takeback obligation or removals trading system. Key ecosystem recommendations include establishing an interagency task force for monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) and streamlining EPA Class VI well permitting to 12 months.

The document outlines the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of ocean warming and acidification, while offering strategic advice for journalists to move beyond reactive coverage toward sustained, justice-oriented reporting on marine ecosystems.

The 2022 Scorecard evaluates eight major private equity firms managing $3.6 trillion in assets, finding that ten of the largest buyout firms held at least 80 percent of their energy portfolios in fossil fuels as of October 2021. The Carlyle Group received the lowest grade (F), with its downstream power plants emitting over 10.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2020. Other firms including Warburg Pincus, KKR, Brookfield, Ares, Apollo, and Blackstone Group received Ds, while TPG earned a B. The report highlights a lack of transparency, noting that The Carlyle Group's TCFD report excludes its fossil-fuel-focused subsidiary, NGP Energy Capital, despite NGP contributing nearly 61 percent of the firm's profit in the first half of 2022. The authors demand that firms align with 1.5°C targets, cease fossil fuel expansion, disclose all emissions, and integrate climate and environmental justice.

California's industrial permitting process is described as long and complicated, creating 'nonproductive friction' that can delay or cancel clean industrial projects. The document argues that because industry accounts for 23% of the state's emissions, streamlining these processes is essential for meeting climate goals. It suggests a dual approach: permit-seekers should prioritize industrial-zoned sites and proactive community engagement, while policymakers should standardize processes through GO-Biz, investigate centralized permitting for first-of-a-kind technologies, and reform the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to remove redundancies.

Carbon Market Watch advocates for replacing 'net' climate targets with three distinct targets: gross emissions reductions, biogenic sequestration in natural sinks, and permanent carbon dioxide removals (CDR). The guide explains that 'net' targets often mask a lack of progress in emissions reductions by relying on uncertain or temporary removals. It distinguishes between permanent technical solutions, such as direct air capture and carbon storage (DACCS), and temporary natural solutions like reforestation. The document argues that separate targets prevent 'mitigation deterrence' and provide better governance of the finite resources required for CDR. While some progress is noted in Germany and Sweden, the author urges the European Commission to adopt this three-target approach in its upcoming 2040 climate target proposal.

The document advocates for separating carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from general climate goals to avoid 'mitigation deterrence,' where the hope of future CDR technologies slows current emission reductions. It proposes a three-pronged approach: binding targets for gross emission reductions, biosequestration in natural sinks, and permanent technological removal. While the EU currently uses 'net' targets for 2030 and 2050, the author suggests the upcoming 2040 target proposal is an ideal opportunity to formalize this separation.

The IISD response to the DESNZ consultation argues for more rigorous standards in assessing Scope 3 emissions for offshore oil projects, specifically calling for the separate reporting of Category 11 emissions, the use of zero-emission baselines, and the assessment of significance based on 1.5°C science-based scenarios rather than as a proportion of global emissions.

The document describes the Paris Agreement's 'ambition cycle' as a four-stage iterative process: formulation of long-term strategies (LTS) and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), implementation, monitoring via Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs), and collective evaluation through the Global Stocktake (GST). It emphasizes the need for alignment between short-term NDCs and long-term net-zero goals, while warning against over-reliance on carbon markets and carbon capture technologies. The guide provides a national implementation roadmap and case studies from Costa Rica, the United Kingdom, Colombia, and Panama to illustrate best practices in climate governance and transparency.