Search Climate Insights Directory

Carbon Market Watch criticizes the draft rules for carbon removals at COP28, stating the text is not ready for adoption due to vague definitions of carbon removals, the absence of a reversal risk assessment tool, and a lack of explicit human rights references.

The State of Climate Action 2023 finds that global efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C are failing, with 41 of 42 assessed indicators not on track for 2030 targets. While electric passenger car sales show exponential growth and are on track, other areas such as fossil fuel financing and deforestation have seen significant setbacks. The report argues that efforts in most sectors must accelerate at least twofold this decade, including a seven-fold increase in the pace of coal phase-out and an eight-fold increase in the shift toward sustainable diets in high-consuming regions.

Carbon Market Watch is calling for the European Commission to establish a dedicated carbon removals framework separate from emission reduction efforts. The organization argues that the current EU approach, which uses a net emissions reduction target, misleadingly suggests that emissions and removals are equivalent and may delay necessary deep emissions cuts. To address this, Carbon Market Watch is building a coalition to co-create an alternative policy architecture featuring separate, explicit targets for emissions reductions, land-sector carbon sequestration, and permanent removals.

The 2023 Production Gap Report reveals that governments plan to produce approximately 110% more fossil fuels by 2030 than is consistent with the 1.5°C temperature limit. Specifically, projections indicate 460% more coal, 29% more oil, and 82% more gas in 2030 compared to the 1.5°C pathway. The report notes that while major producers have pledged net-zero emissions, none have committed to production reductions aligned with the 1.5°C goal. To mitigate risks, the report recommends a near total phase-out of coal by 2040 and a three-quarters reduction in oil and gas production by 2050 from 2020 levels.

The document examines the risks and inefficiencies of direct air capture (DAC), focusing on Oxy's Stratos project in Texas. It argues that DAC is used as a 'smokescreen' to prolong fossil fuel extraction through enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and to capture public subsidies. The briefing highlights that DAC's projected global capacity is insignificant compared to total emissions and that its resource requirements—including water and toxic chemicals—pose environmental risks. It further critiques the influence of oil executives on COP28 leadership and the use of flawed carbon credits to justify continued pollution.

The report argues that current carbon dioxide removal (CDR) governance systems are flawed because they often treat carbon removal as equivalent to emission reductions, leading to 'mitigation deterrence'. It examines regulatory tools like emissions trading systems (ETS), tax credits, and public auctions, as well as voluntary carbon markets (VCMs). The authors conclude that CDR must be a complementary tool, not a substitute for decarbonization. They propose a policy framework based on three principles: precaution, 'do no significant harm' (DNSH), and the primacy of emission reductions. Key recommendations include separating emission reduction targets from CDR and land-based sequestration targets, implementing rigorous measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems, and shifting from offsetting models to 'contributive approaches' or public procurement like reverse auctions.

The document argues that current carbon dioxide removal (CDR) policies often encourage 'mitigation deterrence' by treating removals as equivalent to emission reductions. It reviews various mechanisms—including emissions trading systems, tax credits, and voluntary markets—and concludes that most fail to ensure environmental integrity or permanence. The authors propose a 'blueprint' for sensible policy that strictly separates emission reduction targets from removal targets, mandates robust monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV), and prioritizes the 'Do No Significant Harm' principle. It suggests that funding for CDR should come from carbon pricing revenues or dedicated procurement schemes rather than offsetting mechanisms.

The document argues that Saudi Arabia has spent three decades using procedural and substantive tactics to undermine UN climate negotiations and the IPCC scientific process. It details how Riyadh leverages consensus-based decision-making, raises opportunistic procedural objections, and contests climate science to delay the transition away from fossil fuels. The authors conclude by recommending structural changes to UN voting rules and increased transparency to combat such obstructionism.

The 2023 Production Gap Report finds that governments plan to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 consistent with a 1.5°C warming limit. While many major producers have pledged net-zero emissions, most continue to expand production, with global coal production projected to increase until 2030 and oil and gas until at least 2050. The report argues for a managed, equitable phase-out of all fossil fuels, noting that reliance on carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is risky due to technical uncertainties and a poor track record of pilot project success.

Carbon Market Watch argues for stricter transparency, monitoring, and liability frameworks for carbon removal activities under the Article 6.4 mechanism. The organization proposes that all removal-based credits be publicly tagged, monitoring periods be extended to a minimum of 100 years, and a clear distinction be made between 'avoidable' and 'unavoidable' reversals to ensure project proponents bear appropriate financial liability. It further suggests the implementation of a minimum default risk rating for buffer pool contributions and the ability to permanently ban proponents who violate human rights or cause repeated avoidable reversals.

The document proposes detailed amendments to version 8.0 of the draft recommendation on methodological requirements for the Article 6.4 mechanism. Carbon Market Watch advocates for stronger, mandatory language (changing 'should' to 'shall'), the reintroduction of safeguards to prevent the locking-in of carbon-intensive practices, and more rigorous additionality and baseline-setting standards to ensure the mechanism encourages genuine climate ambition.

The briefing examines carbon mineralization as a carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategy, highlighting its potential to remove up to 10 gigatons of CO2 annually by 2050. It argues that while some federal funding exists, mineralization lacks the dedicated support given to direct air capture. The author calls for expanded R&D funding, demonstration projects, and updated tax credits (specifically 45Q) to scale the technology. Additionally, the document emphasizes the need for robust measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) standards and regulations to manage hazardous materials in feedstocks to ensure responsible deployment.

The author contends that carbon markets are unsuitable for incentivising high-quality carbon removals because they favour the cheapest offsetting options over expensive technological solutions. The document criticises the EU's Carbon Removals Certification Framework (CRCF) for being too vague, lacking safeguards against mitigation deterrence, and potentially enabling greenwashing by allowing certified credits to be sold on the voluntary carbon market. It proposes that the EU's 2040 target should be split into three distinct targets—emission reductions, land-based sinks, and technical removals—to prevent the conflation of reductions and removals into a single net target.

The Center for International Environmental Law asserts that geoengineering technologies, including solar radiation modification and carbon dioxide removal, are unproven, unfeasible at scale, and violate human rights obligations. The organization warns that these technologies are being used as excuses to avoid phasing out fossil fuels and notes that unregulated experiments often occur on Indigenous Peoples' territories without consent. It advocates for a rapid, fair fossil fuel phase-out and the adoption of a global binding instrument via the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty initiative to limit global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The statement warns that fossil fuel companies are leveraging taxpayer-funded DACCS technology to offset emissions and maintain their social license to operate. It highlights Occidental Petroleum's Stratos project as a primary example of how carbon capture can be linked to enhanced oil recovery (EOR), which may actually increase net CO2 emissions. The author urges EU policymakers to ensure the Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) bans the use of removals for offsetting to prevent similar corporate greenwashing in Europe.

The document critiques the use of temporary carbon storage as a climate solution, asserting that unless carbon is stored for significantly more than a century, it cannot physically offset the permanent impact of fossil fuel emissions. It argues that such schemes are often driven by economic interests seeking to avoid emission reductions and that they unfairly burden future generations with the risk of carbon release. The author calls for policymakers, particularly in the European Union, to prohibit temporary storage as carbon offsets and establish minimum durability requirements.

The statement argues that climate-altering engineering technologies, such as carbon capture and storage and solar radiation modification, are unproven at scale and pose significant risks to human rights and the environment. It further contends that decarbonization proposals often fail to address the toxic impacts of industrial agriculture and that the only viable pathway to avoid catastrophic climate change is the immediate phase-out of fossil fuels combined with a human-rights-respecting transition to renewable energy.

The study analyzes IPCC Sixth Assessment Report mitigation scenarios to determine the speed and trajectory of fossil fuel reductions necessary to limit warming to 2 °C or below. It finds that pathways allowing for higher gas emissions rely heavily on carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR), which may be unrealistic due to poor model representation of storage capacity and technology diffusion. Consequently, the authors argue for the establishment of clear production and use benchmarks for coal, oil, and gas.

The document synthesizes expert warnings that geoengineering technologies, including carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation modification (SRM), pose unprecedented risks to human rights and may act as a 'moral hazard' by delaying the necessary phase-out of fossil fuels. It highlights that these technologies are largely unproven and unfeasible at scale, with potential for disproportionate harm to Indigenous Peoples, rural communities, and future generations. The brief advocates for a rights-based approach to climate action that prioritizes immediate emissions reductions and the application of the precautionary principle, suggesting that some high-risk activities, such as stratospheric aerosol injection, may warrant a complete ban.

The report identifies a 'planning gap' in Europe's trajectory toward 2050 climate neutrality and proposes that the updated National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) be transformed into comprehensive roadmaps. It recommends that Member States move beyond a narrow focus on renewables to include a diverse portfolio of clean firm energy (advanced nuclear, superhot rock geothermal), carbon capture and storage (CCS), and zero-carbon fuels. The authors emphasize the need for robust energy system modelling, cross-border infrastructure coordination, and the implementation of financial mechanisms like Carbon Contracts for Difference (CCfD) to attract investment. Additionally, the report calls for a focused strategy to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas supply chain and the creation of a net-zero implementation tracker to ensure accountability.