Search Climate Insights Directory

The briefing note examines the ongoing negotiations regarding Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, highlighting the risk that poorly designed carbon market and non-market mechanisms could lead to human rights violations. It advocates for the inclusion of rights-based safeguards, meaningful stakeholder consultation (including free, prior, and informed consent for indigenous peoples), and independent grievance redress processes to avoid repeating failures seen in the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism.

The document advocates for enhancing public participation in climate policies by leveraging international legal instruments like the Aarhus Convention and the Escazú Agreement. It identifies specific entry points at COP-25—including Article 6 market mechanisms, the Lima Work Programme on Gender, and the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform—where procedural rights and safeguards for environmental defenders should be strengthened. It further suggests using the transparency framework's interactive dialogues to review how public participation improves national climate ambition.

The document highlights the critical need for countries to reach an agreement on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement before COP25. It identifies four primary areas of contention: the transition of old Kyoto Protocol credits, the prevention of double counting through corresponding adjustments, the move away from offsetting logic toward true emission reductions, and the necessity of integrating social and environmental safeguards to protect human rights and support sustainable development.

The document emphasizes that achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 requires increasing the capacity of global carbon sinks through land-use management. Drawing on an IPCC special report, it identifies four high-potential mitigation categories: BECCS, reforestation/forest restoration, afforestation, and biochar. The author advocates for a 'portfolio' approach tailored to regional conditions, particularly in tropical and subtropical areas, while warning that high land demand could pressure food prices and biodiversity. Key success factors include prioritizing optimal biomass conversion, developing multifunctional landscapes, ensuring fair community participation, prioritizing the avoidance of deforestation, and increasing R&D for biochar and BECCS.

The statement criticizes Global North governments for declaring climate emergencies without implementing the systemic changes necessary to avoid catastrophe. It rejects 'false solutions' like carbon markets and geoengineering, advocating instead for a transition to 100% renewable energy managed as a common good by communities rather than corporations.

The statement contends that declarations of climate emergencies by global North governments are insufficient if they continue to fund fossil fuel infrastructure and rely on 'false solutions' like carbon markets and geoengineering. It advocates for a system change that treats energy as a human right and ensures a just transition to 100% renewable energy, emphasizing that rich nations must provide financial support to countries with less capacity to compensate for historical pollution and facilitate adaptation.

The statement criticizes governments in the Global North for declaring climate emergencies without implementing proportional measures, arguing that 'false solutions' like carbon markets and geoengineering serve corporate elites rather than the planet. It calls for a systemic change where energy is treated as a human right and a common good, demanding a just transition that ends fossil fuel extraction and provides financial reparations from rich nations to less fortunate ones.

The document criticizes the lack of substantial progress at the UN climate negotiations in Bonn, specifically regarding the rules for carbon markets and attempts by some countries to block discussions on limiting warming to 1.5 Celsius. It calls for world leaders to align national commitments with the 1.5 Celsius goal at the upcoming UN Climate Action Summit and highlights the need for increased financial contributions to the Green Climate Fund. Positive developments noted include the UK passing a net-zero emissions law and investors demanding urgent climate action.

The briefing argues that Article 6 of the Paris Agreement must implement strong accounting rules to prevent double counting of emission reductions, particularly between national mitigation objectives (NDCs) and the CORSIA aviation scheme. It advocates for phasing out 'pure offsetting' in favor of overall emission reductions and warns against the use of old Kyoto Protocol credits after 2020. Additionally, the document emphasizes the need for local stakeholder involvement and independent grievance mechanisms to prevent the human rights violations seen under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The report outlines key barriers and opportunities in scaling climate finance, emphasizing the need for development finance institutions (DFIs) to increase risk appetite and for the financial system to shift from risk disclosure to incentive-driven action. It highlights the importance of blended finance, sustainable land use, and urban infrastructure frameworks to achieve net-zero emissions by midcentury.

The report outlines a project with two primary goals: analyzing the Paris Agreement's Article 6 market mechanism provisions to inform the development of the agreement's rulebook, and evaluating the readiness of three specific countries—Ukraine, Vietnam, and Ethiopia—to participate in these market mechanisms.

The Sierra Club argues that the proposed Biomethane Tariff by Sempra Utilities is a 'greenwashing' exercise that fails to meet California's incrementality standards for green energy programs. The protest highlights that the tariff would allow the sale of renewable attributes from existing methane sources, potentially including those outside the United States, without ensuring the development of new renewable facilities. Furthermore, the Sierra Club contends that the program lacks a finalized certification protocol and a transparent methodology for calculating greenhouse gas reductions, while potentially incentivizing industrial dairy operations that cause localized air and water pollution. The document suggests that the limited supply of biomethane—estimated at less than four percent of California's total gas demand—should be reserved for hard-to-electrify applications rather than voluntary subscriptions that perpetuate reliance on gas infrastructure.

The report explores the use of impact tokens—blockchain-based digital representations of social and environmental impacts—to overcome five primary barriers in the impact investing industry: lack of appropriate capital, market segmentation, limited exit options, unsophisticated measurement practices, and a shortage of high-quality opportunities. Through ten case studies across sectors like agriculture, energy, and forestry, the document demonstrates how these tokens can increase trust, promote financial inclusion, accelerate monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) processes, and incentivize sustainable behaviors.

The briefing evaluates eight carbon offset programs—including CDM, VCS, and Gold Standard—against ICAO's Program Design Elements for CORSIA. It concludes that no program currently complies with all eligibility criteria, primarily due to uncertainties regarding international accounting rules to prevent double counting. Furthermore, the author argues that the Program Design Elements alone cannot exclude credits lacking environmental value, necessitating the application of the Carbon Offset Credit Integrity Assessment Criteria.

The document critiques carbon markets, specifically cap-and-trade and offsetting, asserting they fail to reduce global emissions and instead facilitate corporate power and human rights abuses. It highlights the failures of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and REDD, and warns that the negotiation of Article 6 at COP25 could lock in these flawed mechanisms, further delaying urgent emissions cuts at the source.

The report evaluates global environmental governance in 2019, highlighting a disconnect between urgent scientific warnings and stalled political action. While progress was made in managing hazardous wastes and plastics, climate and biodiversity governance faced significant setbacks. The document emphasizes the growing need for integrated governance to address the interlinked nature of climate, ocean, and land degradation, while noting that most Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are not on track for 2030.

The report reviews global environmental governance in 2019, highlighting progress in plastic waste regulation and scientific reporting, while noting failures in climate ambition and biodiversity negotiations. It emphasizes the growing need for integrated governance and forecasts 2020 as a critical year for the Paris Agreement and the post-2020 biodiversity framework.

The statement evaluates the conclusion of COP24, noting that while negotiations were contentious, they established a foundation for the Paris Agreement's rulebook and set the stage for updated national climate commitments by 2020. It highlights progress on the Adaptation Fund and the agreement to set a new post-2020 finance goal, while criticizing the United States, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait for opposing the IPCC 1.5°C report. The author emphasizes that the world has not yet begun to aggressively reduce global emissions and calls for bold action from heads of state.

The document describes the Paris Agreement rulebook as the essential set of rules and guidelines required to implement the 2015 Paris Agreement. It highlights that while the Agreement established global temperature goals and the mechanism of nationally determined contributions (NDCs), it left the operational details—such as reporting standards, transparency of climate finance, and the balance between mitigation and adaptation—to be decided. The author notes that negotiations at COP 24 are complicated by the need to balance the responsibilities of developed and developing countries and the interlinked nature of transparency, the global stocktake, and compliance.

The report details the efforts and challenges of integrating human rights into the COP-24 outcomes, noting that while procedural participation in NDC planning was strengthened, substantive human rights references were often diluted or removed from final texts. It also documents the restriction of civil liberties by the Polish government during the conference and highlights specific policy areas, such as the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform and the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss & Damage, where human rights frameworks were maintained or advanced.