Search Climate Insights Directory

The report critiques the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) framework, highlighting how its implementation often leads to the marginalization of indigenous communities and the privatization of forest resources. Through case studies in countries like Indonesia, Mexico, and Paraguay, it argues that REDD is being used by transnational energy companies to 'greenwash' their images while continuing fossil fuel extraction. The document warns that linking REDD to unstable carbon markets and allowing monoculture plantations may undermine actual emission reductions and exacerbate land conflicts.

The report critiques 'Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries' (REDD), claiming it risks exacerbating inequality and privatizing forest resources. It highlights how energy companies use REDD for greenwashing while continuing fossil fuel extraction. Through case studies in Indonesia, Mexico, Paraguay, and others, the document illustrates failures in community consultation, the risk of 'leakage' where deforestation simply shifts location, and the danger of including monoculture plantations in carbon accounting. It concludes that REDD should be decoupled from volatile carbon markets and instead based on public funding and the recognition of Indigenous land rights.

The report critiques the 'Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries' (REDD) mechanism, highlighting how it can exacerbate inequality and privatize forest resources. Through case studies in countries like Indonesia, Mexico, and Paraguay, it demonstrates that REDD projects often exclude indigenous communities from decision-making and serve as a 'greenwash' for fossil fuel and logging companies. The document warns that without reducing demand for agricultural commodities and timber, REDD may lead to 'leakage,' where deforestation simply shifts to other areas, rendering the mechanism ineffective for global climate mitigation.

The study examines three scenarios for greening data centres at Dalhousie University, the University of Ottawa, and the University of Alberta. It finds that relocating to remote renewable sites (Scenario 1) or urban low-emission grids (Scenario 2) is economically unviable due to high capital costs. Only on-site waste heat recovery (Scenario 3) showed a positive net present value for one institution. The report suggests a 'green community cloud' managed by CANARIE as a more viable alternative to individual university efforts.

The report analyzes the CDM project pipeline as of April 2010, finding that procedural delays and operational risks significantly reduce the actual supply of CERs compared to original project estimates. It projects that CER supply up to 2012 may be less than half of planned amounts and evaluates scenarios for the 2013-2020 period, highlighting a heavy dependence on five dominating host countries.

Friends of the Earth criticizes the American Power Act of 2010, a cap and trade bill proposed by Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman. The organization asserts that the bill would roll back Clean Air Act protections, allow for expanded offshore drilling, and provide financial giveaways to industrial polluters. It advocates for the Obama administration to utilize existing Clean Air Act protections while pursuing a stronger climate bill focused on clean energy investment and rapid emission cuts.

The report critiques the Obama Administration's interagency working group for endorsing a 'central' social cost of carbon (SCC) of $21 per ton of CO2, arguing this value is too low to drive meaningful emissions reductions. The authors contend that the reliance on three specific models (DICE, FUND, and PAGE) introduces bias, as these models often underestimate damages or make morally questionable assumptions, such as valuing lives in poor countries less than those in rich ones. Furthermore, the report argues that using discount rates of 2.5% to 5% unfairly diminishes the value of future climate damages and that the failure to account for worst-case catastrophic scenarios leads to ineffectual policy. The authors recommend moving toward a cost-effectiveness framework based on science-based safety standards, citing the United Kingdom's higher carbon price range of $41–$124 per ton as a more appropriate benchmark.

The document advocates for targeting black carbon—a potent short-lived climate forcer—as a 'no regrets' strategy to slow near-term global warming and reduce premature deaths. It identifies diesel engines, cook stoves, and agricultural burning as primary controllable sources and proposes specific regulatory and financial mechanisms, such as diesel particulate filters and clean stove deployment, to address them.

The document examines how the Japanese steel industry, a major global producer, can engage in climate mitigation under post-2012 frameworks. It contrasts sectoral approaches—which are favored by energy-intensive industries to prevent carbon leakage and maintain competitiveness—with cap-and-trade systems. The author proposes four options for integration: incorporating sectoral approaches into Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) or CDM reforms, establishing agreements outside the UNFCCC, relying on non-binding recognition of commitments, or implementing transnational sectoral trading. It concludes that while the Japanese government's support for sectoral approaches shifted under the Hatoyama administration, the industry continues to support them due to low costs and international competition risks.

The document analyzes the political and technical status of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD-plus) following the 2009 Copenhagen Accord. It details the outcomes from various UNFCCC negotiating tracks, including the AWG-LCA and SBSTA, and identifies critical gaps in forest definitions, safeguards, and monitoring systems. The report proposes a phased approach to Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) based on IPCC tiers and discusses the tension between national and subnational implementation. It also examines the integration of REDD-plus with Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) and the necessity of coordinating financing through both grant and market-based mechanisms.

The report finds that Hispanics, African Americans, and other minority groups are often as supportive of, or more supportive of, national climate and energy policies than white Americans, challenging the perception that climate change is primarily a concern of the white upper-middle class.

The report finds that projections for international greenhouse gas offset supply vary by billions of tons annually, with marginal abatement curve (MAC) based estimates being highly optimistic compared to those based on historical market trends. While gross supply is expected to exceed U.S. demand by 2020, net availability will be constrained by competition from other nations, developing countries' own mitigation commitments, and significant uncertainties in program design and market infrastructure.

The document analyzes a draft text for international climate cooperation, emphasizing the need for domestic emission targets in Annex 1 countries to avoid loopholes and provide investment certainty. It argues that non-Annex I countries must develop low-emission plans and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), supported by developed countries' resources and carbon pricing on aviation and shipping. Finally, it calls for a political transition from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to tailored NAMA support to prevent carbon-intensive lock-in and incentivize domestic regulation.

The report argues that reducing methane (CH4) emissions is critical for slowing global warming in the next two decades, particularly in the Arctic, due to methane's high warming potential and short atmospheric lifespan. It identifies agriculture, waste management, and energy production as the primary anthropogenic sources and evaluates the cost-effectiveness of various mitigation strategies. While sectors like natural gas and coal mining offer high low-cost reduction potentials, the report highlights significant barriers including inadequate regulation, financial risks, and limitations within the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism. To address these, the document proposes the creation of a Global Methane Fund.

The executive summary argues that REDD mechanisms are flawed because they focus on reducing emissions rather than stopping deforestation, potentially rewarding polluters and harming Indigenous Peoples. It warns that funding REDD through carbon offsetting undermines climate mitigation in industrialized nations and risks displacing forest-dependent communities. The author advocates for grant-based funding, the exclusion of plantations from forest definitions, and a rights-based approach to forest conservation.

The 2009 Research Highlights from Climate Strategies provides a comprehensive overview of projects addressing the operational challenges of the EU ETS, the feasibility of linking emissions trading schemes, and the design of financial mechanisms for the UNFCCC. It specifically investigates carbon leakage in energy-intensive sectors like cement and steel, the potential for 'Green Investment Schemes' in Central and Eastern Europe, and the implementation of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) in countries including Ghana, South Africa, Brazil, and India. The document also assesses the impact of carbon pricing on the chemical sector and the evolving climate policy landscape in Russia.

The report examines the EU ETS, concluding that while it successfully reduced emissions and had minimal macroeconomic impact, it faced challenges with price volatility and windfall profits due to free allocation. It argues that competitiveness risks are concentrated in a few carbon-intensive sectors and recommends maximizing auctioning and pursuing multilateral agreements for border adjustments to minimize economic distortions.

The document examines the technical and political challenges of integrating REDD into global climate policy, focusing on the scope of activities (from REDD to REDD++), financing mechanisms, measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) standards, and institutional governance. It highlights the diversity of national circumstances, particularly in Africa, and the need for a phased implementation approach that balances equity with efficiency.

The report examines the technical, financial, and institutional challenges of implementing REDD, focusing on the definitions of 'forest', funding mechanisms, and measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems.

The document compares U.S. EPA Climate Leaders’ offset protocols for landfill methane, manure digesters, and afforestation with those of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), California Climate Action Registry (CCAR), and Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). It emphasizes that protocols are essential for defining eligibility and quantification, which in turn drives project development and ensures the credibility of offset markets.