Search Climate Insights Directory

The author asserts that nature-based solutions (NbS) are essential for climate mitigation and resilience but must complement, not replace, industrial emissions cuts. Referencing the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) net-zero standard, the text notes that companies must reduce internal emissions by 90-95% by 2050. NbS could potentially provide one-third of the emissions reductions needed by 2030, addressing the fact that land-use emissions constitute approximately 25% of global emissions.

The authors develop a framework to evaluate the quality of carbon offset credits, specifically focusing on whether one unit represents a genuine emission reduction of at least 1 tCO2e. This is intended to support the use of existing crediting schemes for internationally transferred mitigation outcomes (ITMOs) under Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement, ensuring that such mechanisms maintain environmental integrity and do not increase global emissions.

The author contends that outdated Kyoto-era carbon credits lack environmental integrity and that reviving the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) would not benefit the climate. The text highlights the lack of legal basis for continuing the CDM after 2020 and notes the significant uncertainty regarding the volume of existing credits, with estimates ranging from 300 million to over 4 billion CERs.

The document outlines five primary concerns regarding Article 6 of the Paris Agreement: the lack of buyer demand compared to sellers, the prevalence of unregulated private sector greenwashing, the oversupply of low-quality credits, the struggle to find high-integrity removal credits, and the risk of legacy credits from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) undermining new climate targets.

The briefing outlines the primary focus areas for COP26, including the completion of the Paris rulebook, the implementation of Article 6 regarding carbon markets, and the updating of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Experts discuss the distinction between 'net-zero' and the Paris Agreement's goal of balancing emissions and removals, the role of the IPCC in informing negotiations, and the mechanisms for addressing 'loss and damage' through the Warsaw International Mechanism and the Santiago Network. The document emphasizes the bottom-up nature of the Paris Agreement, which relies on national pledges and transparency rather than binding global limits.

The briefing outlines five critical areas for success at COP26: increasing the ambition of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), mobilizing international climate finance for developing nations, prioritizing global climate adaptation, finalizing rules for international carbon markets under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, and aligning private investments with climate goals through standardized financial reporting.

The fact sheet identifies six corporate entities—BP, Microsoft, IETA, BlackRock, Shell, and Drax—that the author claims are using "net zero" agendas to mask continued fossil fuel investment, rely on unproven technology, and influence policymakers through extensive lobbying and partnerships surrounding COP26.

The fact sheet details how six major corporate players—BP, Microsoft, Drax, IETA, BlackRock, and Shell—employ 'net zero' agendas to maintain business-as-usual operations. It contends that these entities promote 'false solutions' such as carbon offsets, BECCS, and hydrogen to delay emissions cuts at the source. The document further highlights the influence of these corporations on COP26 through sponsorship, lobbying, and participation in industry-led initiatives like the Race to Zero and the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets.

The document critiques the negotiations surrounding Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, specifically the market-based approaches in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.4. It argues that these mechanisms allow developed nations to avoid direct emission reductions and fail to provide necessary public finance to the global South. The author highlights risks such as double counting, lack of environmental integrity, and human rights abuses, including land grabbing and displacement of Indigenous Peoples. Friends of the Earth International advocates for the rejection of carbon markets in favor of non-market approaches (Article 6.8) and direct, grant-based public finance from Northern governments to Southern countries.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) rejects Nature-based Solutions (NbS), characterizing the term as a 'wolf in sheep's clothing.' The organization contends that NbS is too vague, allowing harmful practices like industrial monoculture plantations to be labeled as 'natural.' FoEI argues that NbS serves as a greenwashing tool for fossil fuel and agro-industrial companies to justify 'net zero' claims through carbon offsetting rather than actual emission reductions. The document warns that the scale of land required for these projects leads to land grabbing and violates the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, particularly in the Global South. Instead of NbS, FoEI advocates for systemic change through agroecology, community forest management, and a coordinated phase-out of fossil fuels.

The document critiques the negotiations surrounding Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, specifically the market-based approaches of Articles 6.2 and 6.4. It argues that carbon markets are incompatible with the 1.5°C goal and serve as a tool for developed nations and fossil fuel companies to avoid direct emission reductions. The author highlights technical risks such as double counting and the lack of a legal mandate for demand, while advocating for non-market approaches under Article 6.8 and direct public climate finance from the Global North to the Global South.

Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) rejects Nature Based Solutions (NBS), characterizing it as a 'wolf in sheep's clothing' that instrumentalizes nature to serve corporate profits and 'net-zero' offsetting schemes. The document contends that NBS promotes monoculture plantations, enables the financialization of nature, and threatens the sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. FOEI argues that NBS distracts from the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels and instead advocates for systemic changes such as agroecology and Community Forest Management (CFM).

The briefing note critiques the 'net zero' agenda promoted by the UK presidency at COP26, arguing that the concept allows governments and corporations to maintain fossil fuel pathways through deceptive accounting and unproven technologies. It contends that net zero ignores historical responsibility, is inequitable to the global South, and relies on the physical impossibility of natural sinks absorbing all combusted fossil carbon. The author warns that the confusion between carbon removals and offsets is being exploited to create a carbon market potentially worth US$50-100 billion by 2030, which diverts investment from systemic transformation. Friends of the Earth International demands a focus on 'real zero', absolute emissions reductions by 2030, the exclusion of corporate polluters from COP26, and the fulfillment of climate finance obligations by Northern countries.

The report evaluates progress toward the New York Declaration on Forests (NYDF) and the Paris Agreement, concluding that current efforts are insufficient to end forest loss and greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. It argues that forest mitigation goals are fundamentally conflicted with an economic system based on unlimited production and consumption. To address this, the document outlines six key strategies for governments: strengthening land governance, securing indigenous and local community rights, aligning financial incentives, supporting multi-stakeholder collaboration, improving forest monitoring, and implementing demand-side measures in importing countries.

The report finds that while the Paris Agreement has confirmed the role of forests in the international climate agenda, global efforts to end forest loss and greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 remain insufficient. It argues that current economic systems incentivize forest exploitation and that existing government initiatives—such as REDD+ programs and monitoring systems—have not been enough to counter these drivers. To realize forests' mitigation potential, the authors recommend that governments increase ambition in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), massively scale up domestic and international finance, and implement six specific strategies: strengthening land governance, securing Indigenous Peoples and local communities' (IPLCs) rights, aligning fiscal incentives, promoting multistakeholder collaboration, ensuring robust monitoring, and expanding demand-side measures in importing countries.

The report finds that while the Paris Agreement has integrated forests into the international climate agenda, current national actions are insufficient to stop forest loss and greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. It argues that governments must increase the ambition of their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), align financial flows with climate goals, and implement six core strategies: strengthening governance, protecting indigenous land rights, aligning incentives, promoting multi-stakeholder collaboration, ensuring robust monitoring, and implementing demand-side measures in importing countries.

The report argues that current GHG accounting systems rely too heavily on approximations and are unsuitable for comparing scope 3 emissions between companies. To resolve this, RMI proposes a framework consisting of unified accounting principles that prioritize primary data, a technical architecture based on distributed ledger technology to track embodied carbon at the product level, and the creation of "digital twins" of carbon emissions to enable emissions to function as a unit of trade. This system aims to transform climate intelligence into actionable business intelligence and support the development of a global carbon market under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.

The document addresses the funding gap for Paris Agreement emissions goals, arguing that blending carbon markets and climate finance is necessary for mitigation projects in developing countries. It emphasizes the need for proportional attribution standards to ensure the integrity of emissions reduction accounting.

Ghana's updated NDC (2020-2030) aims to reduce absolute greenhouse gas emissions by 64 MtCO2e and benefit nearly 38 million people. The plan consists of 13 adaptation and 34 mitigation measures, requiring an estimated investment of US$ 9.3 to US$ 15.5 billion. The strategy emphasizes sustainable energy transition, landscape restoration, and social inclusion, with a specific focus on reducing short-lived climate pollutants to improve public health.

Carbon Market Watch argues that environmental integrity under Article 6 requires the mandatory application of corresponding adjustments to all mitigation activities to prevent double counting. The briefing strongly opposes the carry-over of pre-2020 Kyoto Protocol units, asserting they would flood the market with up to 4 billion "junk credits" and increase global emissions. Additionally, it advocates for a share of proceeds (SOP) for adaptation that combines monetary and in-kind contributions, recommending that this levy apply to both Article 6.2 and 6.4 mechanisms to ensure stable finance for developing countries.