Search Climate Insights Directory

The briefing evaluates the virtual UN Climate Change subsidiary bodies sessions, noting that while substantive discussions occurred, significant divides between developed and developing nations persisted. Key areas of limited progress include the Paris Agreement Rulebook, carbon markets under Article 6, and the delivery of climate finance. The document highlights logistical hurdles of virtual negotiations and a perceived imbalance in the agenda, which sidelined critical issues like loss and damage and the global goal on adaptation, leaving substantial political and technical work for COP26 in Glasgow.

Carbon Market Watch asserts that Article 6 of the Paris Agreement must move beyond zero-sum offsetting to achieve an overall mitigation in global emissions (OMGE). The author critiques two proposed options—relying on market forces and using conservative baselines—as insufficient. Instead, the document advocates for the automatic partial cancellation of credits, arguing that this mechanism ensures net atmospheric benefits and can increase carbon market prices and project owner profits.

Carbon Market Watch argues against the transition of CDM credits to the Paris Agreement era, warning that up to 4 billion "hot air" credits could flood the market. The organization advocates for a clean break from the Kyoto Protocol, requiring all CDM projects to be reassessed against strict quality criteria. To enable climate ambition under Article 6, the submission proposes the use of conservative baselines, an automatic partial cancellation rate of credits to ensure overall global emission reductions, and the restriction of carbon markets to the disbursement of results-based climate finance rather than zero-sum offsetting.

The document analyzes how 'Big Polluters' across various sectors use 'net zero' targets as a form of greenwashing to delay real emission reductions. It identifies critical conceptual flaws in these plans, such as reliance on unproven geoengineering and carbon offsets, and details how these corporations influence political and academic institutions to validate their agendas. Case studies on companies like Shell, Total SA, and JBS illustrate the gap between public commitments and actual business operations, while the report calls for a transition to 'Real Zero' by 2030.

The report claims that "net zero" agendas are a form of greenwashing used by "Big Polluters" to avoid reducing emissions. It identifies these entities as industries responsible for the majority of historical emissions, including fossil fuels, agribusiness, and aviation. The document details how these actors use risky technologies like BECCS and carbon offsets as "dangerous distractions" and employ lobbying, financial contributions, and academic partnerships to shape climate policy in their favor. Case studies on JBS, Shell, and Total SA are used to illustrate how these plans often mask continued pollution and lead to land grabbing in the Global South.

The report contends that "net zero" pledges from "Big Polluters"—including fossil fuel, agribusiness, and tech giants—are deceptive strategies to avoid responsibility for climate change. It identifies "dangerous distractions" such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), and carbon offsets, arguing these schemes often lead to human rights abuses and "carbon colonialism." The document details how these corporations influence policy through lobbying, financial contributions to politicians, and the funding of academic research at institutions like Stanford and MIT to validate "net zero" narratives. Case studies of Shell, Total SA, and JBS are used to illustrate how these plans often mask continued production of high-emissions products.

The document details a participatory process to define a subnational bioeconomy for Valle del Cauca, Colombia, focusing on the agricultural, agro-industrial, and nature tourism sectors. It proposes a transition toward 'bioresource' and 'bioecology' visions that balance economic growth with environmental sustainability and social inclusion. The resulting roadmap emphasizes the need for a multi-actor governance scheme, targeted financial incentives for circularity, and critical infrastructure improvements in rural transport and basic services to enable the processing of biological resources.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the rapid operationalisation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement must not undermine environmental integrity or inclusiveness. The submission identifies several critical 'building blocks' required for the mechanism to function, including the establishment of a conflict-of-interest-free Supervisory Body, the implementation of independent grievance mechanisms, and the rigorous review of methodologies regarding additionality and permanence. It further advocates for an automatic partial cancellation of units to ensure overall mitigation in global emissions and the creation of proactive stakeholder notification systems to improve transparency beyond simple document availability.

WRI Brasil evaluates President Jair Bolsonaro's announcement to advance Brazil's climate neutrality goal to 2050. While acknowledging the gesture, the statement argues that the 2030 emission targets are less ambitious in absolute terms due to base-year adjustments and that the promises of zero illegal deforestation by 2030 contradict the administration's recent relaxation of law enforcement and removal of such targets from the 2020 NDC.

The letter urges EU officials to adopt gross greenhouse gas reduction targets and separate carbon removal targets to ensure that forest restoration does not serve as a 'smoke screen' for climate inaction in the energy, transport, and industrial sectors. It argues that fossil carbon and atmospheric carbon pools are distinct and that forest sinks are too impermanent and uncertain to justify market-based offsets.

The document serves as an introductory resource for policymakers to design domestic carbon crediting mechanisms. It outlines the framework for recognizing emission reductions and carbon removals, identifies policy design options, and discusses the trade-offs associated with different design features to help jurisdictions align these mechanisms with their specific policy objectives.

The document critiques the concept of 'net zero' and the expansion of carbon markets, distinguishing between 'real zero' (immediate emission cuts) and 'false zero' (reliance on offsets). It asserts that fossil fuel emissions cannot be physically offset by natural ecosystems and warns that the drive for 'nature-based solutions' leads to land grabbing and the financialization of nature. The report calls for a coordinated phase-out of fossil fuels and a transition to a just, community-led energy and food system.

The document critiques the concept of 'net zero' and the use of carbon offsetting, distinguishing between 'real zero' (actual emission elimination) and 'false zero' (reliance on offsets). It asserts that carbon markets and 'nature-based solutions' are used as distractions by the fossil fuel industry and financial sectors to maintain the status quo, which risks further land grabbing and the violation of Indigenous and local community rights. The report emphasizes that fossil carbon cannot be simply absorbed by the biosphere and calls for a coordinated phase-out of fossil fuels and a transition to a climate-just economy.

The document critiques the concept of 'net zero' and carbon offsetting, distinguishing between 'true zero' (rapidly eliminating fossil fuel emissions) and 'false zero' (relying on offsets). It asserts that fossil carbon cannot be absorbed by natural cycles and that the demand for offsets leads to the financialization of nature and the dispossession of indigenous and local communities.

The document critiques the concept of "net zero," distinguishing between "real zero" (immediate deep emission cuts) and "fake zero" (reliance on offsets). It asserts that carbon offsets do not reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations and that the land required to meet corporate offset demands would be ecologically and socially catastrophic. The report specifically highlights the role of the financial sector and fossil fuel majors in rehabilitating voluntary carbon markets to maintain business-as-usual operations.

The document examines the role of nature-based solutions (NBS) in corporate net-zero strategies, emphasizing that while NBS can provide critical finance for conservation and significant co-benefits for biodiversity, they must not substitute for direct fossil fuel abatement. It details 'demand-side' risks, such as the potential for offsets to dilute corporate ambition, and 'supply-side' risks, including leakage, permanence, and additionality. The authors advocate for a 'both/and' approach combining aggressive internal decarbonization with high-quality NBS credits, preferably shifting from project-based to jurisdictional-scale crediting to improve integrity.

The report argues that emissions trading mechanisms under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement risk undermining global mitigation ambition and causing human rights violations. It proposes three essential policy pillars—robust public participation, social and environmental safeguards, and independent grievance mechanisms—as prerequisites for any such framework. The document highlights failures in previous systems like the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and provides examples of 'good policies' from development finance institutions to guide the UNFCCC in creating a rights-compliant rulebook.

The policy brief positions carbon dioxide removal (CDR) as a public good and service, similar to wastewater treatment, because most approaches do not generate independent revenues and are avoided by commercial finance. It recommends that governments implement specific absolute volume targets for CDR within Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), provide dedicated subsidies, and eliminate regulatory barriers such as underground storage permitting. To ensure long-term scalability, the brief advocates for a universal carbon price, the integration of CDR into Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, and the development of robust monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) methodologies to maintain environmental integrity.

The briefing expresses concern that ISO/WD 14082, intended to standardize the measurement of non-greenhouse gas climate forcers, may be used to create markets for 'climate coolants'. This would allow entities to offset greenhouse gas emissions by emitting reflective pollutants, potentially delaying decarbonization in sectors like shipping and aviation and undermining international climate accounting methods.

The report identifies 23 financial transaction mechanisms and 35 enabling frameworks aimed at protecting and restoring nature. It categorizes these mechanisms into fiscal interventions, regulatory instruments, new government-enabled markets, traditional market-based instruments, and hybrid mechanisms. The authors argue that while innovation is high in identifying revenue streams, most mechanisms lack scale due to a reliance on public funding, a need for high private-value-capture potential, and a lack of performance certainty for large capital providers.