Search Climate Insights Directory

The document asserts that fossil and biological carbon operate on fundamentally different timescales and cycles, making them non-fungible. While fossil carbon is permanent, biological carbon is subject to rapid fluxes and risks of reversibility from fires, pests, or rising temperatures. The author contends that relying on biological offsets to mitigate fossil emissions is scientifically unsound and practically limited by land area and nutrient requirements, concluding that emissions from both sources must be addressed in parallel rather than through offsetting.

The policy brief warns that the Kyoto Protocol's market mechanisms created an 11 gigatonne 'hot air' loophole due to inflated greenhouse gas estimates, particularly in Eastern European countries. It argues that allowing the carry-over of these credits or early action credits into the post-2020 Paris agreement would undermine climate goals and fail to drive real mitigation. The author recommends that eligibility for market mechanisms be restricted to parties with ambitious, quantified carbon budgets and that early action in developing countries be supported through new climate finance rather than credits.

The briefing argues that allowing 'hot air' credits—surplus units from the Kyoto Protocol or inflated NDCs—threatens global climate targets. It proposes four 'damage control measures': prohibiting the use of Kyoto Protocol units (CERs, ERUs, AAUs) after 2020; limiting the transfer of units to 1% of 2010-2012 average annual emissions; prohibiting the carry-over of Article 6.2 ITMOs across NDC periods; and limiting the lifetime of Article 6.4 emission reductions to five years with restricted banking.

The document critiques agricultural carbon offsets, stating they risk harming farmers' autonomy, fail to provide permanent carbon sequestration, and may actually increase overall emissions. It recommends that governments and international bodies exclude land-based offsets from carbon markets and instead fund agroecological transitions.

The document is an open letter addressed to ministers and UNFCCC representatives during COP-19. Signed by 33 civil society networks and individuals from 87 countries, it argues that carbon markets must not compromise the ambition of climate mitigation efforts. The authors call for a comprehensive climate agreement by 2015, specifically demanding the rejection of pilot phase trading under the Diversified Framework Approach (FVA), the removal of non-additional projects and coal power from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and the establishment of international verification to prevent double counting.

The letter expresses concern that 555 million carbon offset credits were surrendered into the EU ETS between 2008 and 2011, costing an estimated €5.9bn. The signatories argue that these offsets stifle domestic action, support business-as-usual coal and large hydro projects in the CDM, and allow for 'hot-air laundering' through Track 1 Joint Implementation, thereby threatening the environmental integrity of EU climate policies.

The document evaluates the Paris Agreement as a positive step that increased global ambition to limit warming to 1.5ºC, though it notes that current Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) remain inadequate. It details the creation of three frameworks under Article 6 for carbon markets and non-market approaches, while warning against the use of temporary land-use carbon sequestration to justify continued fossil pollution. The analysis highlights gaps in climate finance, the lack of explicit mandates for international aviation and shipping, and the historic inclusion of human rights in the preamble.

A survey of 2,164 American adults in 2008 reveals that while the economy is the top national priority, a majority of Americans view global warming as a serious threat and support a wide range of climate and energy policies, including renewable energy research and carbon regulation. Despite this support, political and consumer activism remains low, largely due to a lack of information on how to act. Most Americans trust scientists and family as information sources but express uncertainty about whether humanity will successfully reduce global warming.

The report, produced by a consortium of medical societies, alerts the public and policymakers that climate change is already causing direct and indirect health harms across the United States. It identifies vulnerable populations, such as children and the elderly, and details how extreme heat, weather events, air pollution, and the spread of infectious diseases impact public health. The document advocates for the acceleration of a transition to clean renewable energy as the most critical action to protect health and provide immediate co-benefits like improved air and water quality.

The Climate Social Science Network has listed a group of scholars available for media consultation during COP 26. These experts, some attending in Glasgow and others available remotely, provide expertise across several key climate themes including climate finance, loss and damage, carbon markets, and the political dynamics of climate obstruction.

The document presents a framework of values for a proposed Fossil Fuel Treaty, emphasizing a just transition, non-proliferation of fossil fuels, and a fair phase-out. It advocates for centering the public good over private interests, redressing global imbalances through the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC), and protecting human rights and Indigenous self-determination. The text identifies risks such as 'false solutions' and 'dilution of ambition' and proposes operational strategies at national, regional, and global levels to ensure accountability and equity.

The document argues that carbon markets, offsetting systems, and carbon credits are 'false climate solutions' rooted in capitalism, neocolonialism, and extractivism. It asserts that these mechanisms often violate the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, leading to land theft and environmental harm, and provides a framework to help these communities protect their rights and territories.

Friends of the Earth International calls for a transition away from a neoliberal economic model and the rejection of market-based climate solutions. The report emphasizes the moral and legal obligation of rich nations to lead emission cuts and provide public funding for adaptation and mitigation in the Global South, while warning against the risks of carbon markets and the 'Green Economy' framework if it ignores social justice.

The document outlines a framework for climate equity, asserting that developed nations owe an ecological debt to developing nations due to historical overconsumption. It advocates for a global carbon budget apportioned by responsibility, capacity, and the right to sustainable societies, while calling for a systemic shift away from neoliberalism toward community-owned energy and agroecology to limit global warming to 1.5°C.

The document critiques the 'green economy' as a mechanism for financial institutions and multinationals to commodify nature. It argues that market-based solutions, such as carbon markets and biodiversity offsets, lead to 'green grabbing,' the marginalization of indigenous communities, and the evasion of corporate environmental responsibility. The report advocates for the recognition of ecological debt, the protection of common goods through community management, and a radical shift toward sustainable societies based on social and ecological justice rather than market logic.

The report critiques the extension of market economies to ecosystems, specifically targeting carbon markets, biodiversity offsets, and water trading. It argues that these mechanisms allow corporations to avoid genuine emission reductions and environmental protection by paying for compensation certificates. The text highlights the role of financial institutions like the World Bank and Caisse des dépôts et consignations in structuring these markets, and warns that such financialization leads to land grabbing, the marginalization of indigenous populations, and the deregulation of environmental laws.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) opposes REDD, arguing that carbon markets and financial incentives fail to address the root causes of climate change and instead lead to 'green grabbing' and the erosion of traditional forest management. The document contends that REDD shifts responsibility away from industrialized nations and threatens the land rights and cultural values of forest-dependent populations. FoEI proposes an alternative based on the legal recognition of Indigenous and community land rights, collective forest management, and a structural transition away from fossil fuels based on climate justice.

The document argues that climate equity requires developed nations to take the lead in reducing emissions and providing financial and technological support to developing nations due to their historical responsibility. It advocates for limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C through a carbon budget based on responsibility, capacity, and the right to sustainable societies. The text calls for a systemic economic transformation away from neoliberalism and fossil fuels toward community-led renewable energy and agroecology.

The document critiques soil carbon sequestration markets, asserting they allow major polluters to avoid real emission reductions while increasing corporate control over agriculture. It highlights how these systems favor large-scale industrial farms, marginalize smallholders, and rely on unreliable measurement methods. The text further details the role of governments and corporations, such as Yara, in promoting these mechanisms despite scientific evidence suggesting that 'climate-smart' practices do not significantly increase soil carbon storage.

The briefing by Friends of the Earth International critiques carbon trading and offsetting, specifically the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), as mechanisms that lock in fossil fuel dependency and facilitate human rights abuses. It warns that proposed expansions at COP 17—including sectoral crediting, soil carbon markets, and the inclusion of carbon capture and storage (CCS)—will further undermine global climate goals. The author advocates for a systemic transition to renewable energy and the provision of public, additional climate finance instead of market-based mechanisms.