Search Climate Insights Directory

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 research identifies 'understanding', 'awareness', and 'economic/finance' as the primary capacity gaps for land-based mitigation technologies and practices (LMTs) across five global regions. The authors suggest that addressing knowledge and understanding gaps is a critical first step to increase stakeholder attraction to LMTs. To support scaling, the paper recommends that policymakers develop dedicated support policies and regulatory frameworks, build markets, utilize carbon markets, and collaborate with local and Indigenous Peoples using bottom-up implementation plans and traditional knowledge.

The report evaluates the methodologies of four carbon credit rating agencies (BeZero, Calyx, Renoster, and Sylvera) to determine if they deliver on claims of increasing market transparency and integrity. Using the Carbon Credit Quality Initiative (CCQI) as a benchmark, the analysis finds that Calyx employs the most stringent approach, while BeZero and Sylvera are rated as adequate. Renoster's data-centric, algorithmic approach is deemed incomparable to the others. Key findings highlight significant differences in how agencies treat additionality as a limiting factor, the inclusion of leakage in overall scores, and the transparency of their rating justifications. The report recommends greater alignment with financial rating standards, mandatory inclusion of leakage in final scores, and increased public disclosure of project-specific frameworks.

The Nairobi Declaration asserts that Africa is disproportionately affected by climate change despite minimal historical responsibility. It calls for the global community to honor the $100 billion annual climate finance promise, operationalize the Loss & Damage fund, and reform the multilateral financial system to reduce the 'great financial divide' in borrowing costs. The declaration commits Africa to green industrialization, increasing renewable energy capacity to 300 GW by 2030, and valuing its natural capital. It specifically requests the re-channeling of $100 billion in Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) to Africa and the reduction of corporate tax losses from profit shifting.

The Impact Financing Facility for Climate-Focused Social Enterprises is a first-loss default guarantee (FLDG) mechanism designed to bridge the USD 250 billion credit gap for MSMEs in India. Led by Villgro, the facility targets climate-focused social enterprises and their end-users who lack formal credit histories, providing them with collateral-free commercial debt twinned with technical assistance. A pilot conducted between 2021-23 with six enterprises demonstrated the instrument's viability with no defaults. The facility focuses on sectors including green energy, sustainable mobility, and waste management, with a specific emphasis on gender and circularity. It aims to graduate beneficiaries to independent commercial lending while achieving environmental targets, such as a 50,000 tCO2e reduction in emissions by 2028.

The report analyzes the I-JETP's goal of mobilizing $20 billion for Indonesia's energy transition, framing it as an initial 'downpayment' for a much larger requirement potentially exceeding $200 billion over 15 years. It identifies a '3+1' funding strategy involving international public, international private, domestic private, and domestic public capital. Key challenges include rising global interest rates increasing the absolute cost of renewables, the need for significant grid/transmission upgrades, and the necessity of policy reforms regarding power purchase agreements and the role of the state utility PLN. The author argues that success depends on the Government of Indonesia's commitment to policy predictability and the international community's willingness to provide concessional financing that ensures electricity affordability.

Carbon Market Watch (CMW) highlights that the two-week window for providing inputs to the Supervisory Body on removal activities is "extremely short" and overlaps with SB58, potentially leading to an underrepresentation of observer organisations. Instead of new inputs, CMW directs the Supervisory Body to five previous submissions made between May 2022 and April 2023 regarding removal activities and methodological requirements.

The Canada Growth Fund (CGF), a $15 billion 'green bank' designed to catalyze private investment for Canada's net-zero transition, will be managed by the Public Sector Pension Investment Board (PSP Investments). The author warns that CGF's success depends on avoiding PSP's 'business as usual' focus on private returns, as CGF must prioritize social returns and accept higher risks through concessional finance. To mitigate the risk of conflating these mandates, the document recommends a transparent investment strategy co-written by policy and finance experts, a diverse decision-making committee with expertise in climate policy and low-carbon technology, and clear accountability structures that separate the Fund's policy goals from PSP's fiduciary duties to pension beneficiaries.

The Canada Growth Fund, a "green bank" designed to catalyze private investment in Canada's transition to net-zero, is managed by the federal Crown corporation PSP Investments. The author warns that the Fund's success depends on its ability to operate with a different risk tolerance and set of objectives than PSP's core pension fund management. While PSP focuses on maximizing returns for beneficiaries, the Canada Growth Fund must use concessional financing to support high-risk, innovative clean growth projects that offer broad societal benefits but may lack immediate private profitability. To mitigate the risk of the Fund's policy goals being eroded by a traditional private-return mindset, the author recommends a transparent investment strategy, a diverse range of expertise in climate policy and technology, and clear accountability mechanisms between the Fund, PSP, and the federal government.

The briefing examines the debate over New York's transition to a 20-year global warming potential (GWP20) timeframe and the inclusion of upstream and biogenic emissions. It argues that this accounting method increases the avoided temperature rise by 66% compared to old methods and could avoid up to $240 billion in damages. The author contends that changing the accounting timeframe does not increase physical emissions and that affordability can be maintained through strategic policy design and federal funding.

The Climate Change (Amendment) Bill, 2023 aims to integrate carbon markets into Kenya's climate response to attract investment and achieve low-cost emissions reductions. However, Natural Justice warns that without robust legislation, these markets could allow developed nations to continue burning fossil fuels while negatively impacting the global south. The document identifies several critical flaws in the Bill, including the removal of specific requirements for civil society and marginalized community representatives on the National Climate Change Council, which may contravene the Constitution of Kenya 2010. It also highlights a lack of clear role distinctions between national and county governments and insufficient procedures for effective public participation. Regarding the forestry sector, the Bill suggests that afforestation and reforestation will be part of an emissions trading system, necessitating strict monitoring of emissions. Natural Justice urges the government to delay implementing carbon market mechanisms until all necessary regulations are adopted through a transparent public participation process.

Methane mitigation is severely underfunded, with current annual spending at only 10% of the $119 billion required to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius. The report identifies structural barriers, including a lack of donor prioritization, absence of dedicated funding windows, and a shortage of bankable project pipelines in developing countries. It recommends that development finance institutions designate methane 'champions', that donor governments increase funding for project preparation, and that developing nations create enabling policy environments to attract private investment.

Friends of the Earth International proposes a framework for 'system change' to address the interconnected crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, and social inequality. The document identifies five primary pathways for transformation: gender justice, energy sovereignty, food sovereignty, community forest management, and a regenerative economy. It critiques 'false solutions'—such as carbon markets and geoengineering—that allow corporations to profit while maintaining harmful structures. The report emphasizes the role of grassroots movements, the reclamation of the state for the common good, and internationalist solidarity to dismantle corporate power and patriarchy.

The report by Friends of the Earth International outlines a framework for systemic change to address the interconnected crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, and social inequality. It identifies neoliberal capitalism, patriarchy, and colonialism as the root causes of these crises and proposes 'people's solutions' centered on gender justice, democratic energy systems, food sovereignty, community forest management, and a distributive economy. The document emphasizes the need to dismantle corporate power and reclaim political agency to ensure a future based on social, environmental, and gender justice.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the Article 6.2 country-to-country carbon market lacks sufficient transparency and accountability. The organization calls for the 2023 Bonn intersessional conference to establish strict reporting requirements, eliminate the use of non-disclosure agreements for bilateral deals, and synchronize the authorization process to prevent double counting of emission reductions.

The Stockholm Environment Institute argues that full linkage between Washington's carbon market and the California-Quebec (WCI) market currently poses risks to Washington's environmental goals due to misaligned time horizons and differing levels of ambition. Specifically, the authors highlight a large bank of unused allowances in California that could reduce in-state emission reductions and auction revenues in Washington. They recommend that full linkage be contingent on California extending its program beyond 2030 and tightening its 2030 cap. As an interim measure, the authors propose 'restricted linkage'—such as a limit on the import of WCI allowances (e.g., 2-3% of compliance obligations)—to provide cost containment while maintaining environmental integrity and revenue streams for overburdened communities.

The document argues that climate coverage must expand beyond problem-focused reporting to include solutions to empower audiences and policymakers. It defines solutions journalism as rigorous, evidence-based reporting that investigates the effectiveness and limitations of responses to the climate crisis. The guide emphasizes equity and justice, noting that marginalized communities—including indigenous peoples, who manage lands containing "approximately the 80% of the biodiversity that remains in the world"—are often the most impacted yet least responsible for the crisis. It categorizes potential story leads into five areas: policy and government (e.g., carbon pricing and subsidies), economy and business (e.g., scrutinizing "greenwash" and "net zero" claims), technologies and practices (distinguishing between mitigation and adaptation), civil society (evaluating the "theory of change" behind activism), and culture (the role of arts and celebrities). The guide concludes that while not all reporting should be solutions-oriented, integrating this mindset is essential to providing a complete picture of the climate emergency.

The Universal Energy Facility (UEF), managed by Sustainable Energy for All (SEforALL), launched the 'Stand-Alone Solar for Productive Use' (SSPU) programme in Nigeria in 2022. This results-based financing (RBF) initiative provides grants to renewable energy companies to deploy solar and storage solutions for businesses and households, aiming to displace polluting generators. An initial USD 10 million in funding was allocated to ten companies to provide over 3,500 electricity connections. The programme seeks to improve energy access, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and foster economic productivity by lowering the up-front costs of solar installation.

Carbon Market Watch (CMW) argues that the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body must establish a robust, independent grievance mechanism before registering any carbon crediting projects to protect indigenous peoples and local communities. Drawing on a review by Perspectives Climate Research, CMW finds that most voluntary carbon market (VCM) standards—including Verra, American Carbon Registry, and Climate Action Reserve—have inadequate mechanisms, while the Global Carbon Council lacks one entirely. Only the Gold Standard and the Green Climate Fund's Independent Redress Mechanism are identified as high-quality models. CMW recommends that the Article 6.4 mechanism be fully independent, transparent, and accessible, featuring a public grievance repository and the power to overturn Supervisory Body decisions.

The report evaluates grievance mechanisms across various carbon market standards and funds, using UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights as a benchmark. It finds that most voluntary carbon market (VCM) standards have opaque or insufficient mechanisms, while the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and Gold Standard provide more robust models. The authors recommend that the Article 6.4 mechanism prioritize accessibility, transparency through public repositories, independence, and the ability to provide binding remedies, including the power to overturn Supervisory Body decisions.