Search Climate Insights Directory

The report details how Shell and TotalEnergies integrate themselves across the VCM value chain—from project development and trading to influencing governance—to maintain fossil fuel production while claiming progress toward net-zero. It highlights systemic issues with the integrity of the credits they use, specifically in forestry and cookstove projects, and notes that neither company has a decarbonisation plan aligned with the Paris Agreement.

The document analyzes the rising trend of greenwashing litigation and regulatory enforcement against companies using carbon credits to claim carbon neutrality. It highlights a divergence between the European Union, UK, and Australia—where courts and regulators are increasingly skeptical of offsetting—and the United States, where outdated guidelines and judicial reluctance have created a more fragmented enforcement landscape. The briefing concludes that companies face growing financial and reputational risks and should shift from compensation-based claims to genuine internal emissions reductions.

The policy brief by Carbon Market Watch criticises the EU's CRCF carbon farming methodologies for agriculture, agroforestry, afforestation, and peatland rewetting. It argues that the framework lacks clear use cases, potentially allowing for problematic offsetting, and suffers from flawed quantification, weak additionality tests, and insufficient sustainability safeguards. The report warns that these deficiencies could lead to the overestimation of carbon removals and undermine the EU's climate goals and international reputation.

The report synthesizes interviews with 25 climate litigation practitioners to identify critical gaps in scientific evidence needed for legal accountability. It highlights ten research priorities, including advances in end-to-end attribution science, quantification of noneconomic loss and damage, and the impact of industry disinformation. The authors also detail barriers to integrating science in courts, such as the 'resource imbalance' between public-interest lawyers and industry defendants, the differing standards of 'certainty' between science and law, and political interference in the judiciary.

A group of health professionals and advocates is appealing to the Minister of Industry to reopen a Competition Bureau investigation into the Canadian Gas Association's (CGA) 'Fuelling Canada' campaign. The applicants argue that the Bureau's decision to drop the inquiry simply because the CGA removed the claims does not remedy public health harms, deter greenwashing, or provide market clarity. They highlight a systemic pattern of the Bureau closing environmental and health-related deceptive marketing cases without formal determinations, citing similar outcomes for the Pathways Alliance and Shell Canada.

The Center for International Environmental Law asserts that the UNFCCC is currently hindered by a consensus model that allows a small number of countries to obstruct progress. Citing the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta and the UN General Assembly's resolution on the ICJ climate Advisory Opinion, the authors argue that climate action is moving beyond the UNFCCC and that the body must evolve to incorporate majority voting, address corporate capture, and operationalize legal obligations to prevent climate harm.

The report critiques the EU's CRCF carbon farming methodologies, highlighting systemic flaws in quantification, additionality, and sustainability safeguards. It argues that the current framework allows for potential overcrediting and greenwashing, particularly if units are used for offsetting. The author recommends shifting from a credit-based system to an activity-based performance model to ensure environmental integrity.

The report argues that fossil fuel interests use corporate lobbying, trade associations, and advisory roles to maintain the availability of cheap, low-quality carbon credits to avoid structural decarbonization. It details specific efforts to weaken California's cap-and-trade program and oppose transparency laws like AB 1305, while highlighting the role of the CFTC in federal oversight. The document concludes with recommendations to ban fossil fuel companies from climate advisory roles and eliminate carbon credits from California's compliance mechanisms.

The study finds that the draft CRCF methodology for carbon farming is not fit for purpose, setting a lower integrity standard than the PACM and risking the issuance of units not backed by actual emission reductions. Key failures include insufficient additionality and permanence requirements, the omission of leakage and indirect land-use change (ILUC) risks, and a lack of systematic safeguards. The authors recommend revising the methodology to align with international benchmarks and prohibiting the use of CRCF carbon farming units for offsetting purposes.

The report finds that methane emissions from anaerobic digestion (AD) systems typically range from 0.5% to 6% of total production, with some plants reaching 41%, which is significantly higher than average levels in the oil and gas industry. Current regulatory frameworks in countries like France and Germany often prioritize worker safety over methane mitigation, and the United States lacks dedicated federal or state regulations for AD methane emissions. The report emphasizes that digestate storage is frequently the largest emission source, particularly in the U.S. where lagoons are often uncovered. It recommends implementing robust, facility-level MMRV, mandatory leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs, and the use of conservatively high default emission factors in carbon crediting methodologies to incentivize actual emission reductions.

The document argues that the traditional carbon offsetting model is fundamentally flawed and misleading, urging companies to adopt Beyond Value Chain Mitigation (BVCM). Unlike offsetting, which claims to 'cancel out' emissions, BVCM involves supporting external climate projects as a contribution to global goals without claiming carbon neutrality. The guide outlines the legal and reputational risks of offsetting—including a September 2026 EU ban on product-level offsetting claims—and provides a five-step implementation framework for BVCM. It suggests diversifying contributions beyond carbon credits into durable carbon removals (CDR), 'high-hanging fruit' technology research, and climate impact funds, while emphasizing that external action must not replace internal decarbonization aligned with a 1.5°C trajectory.

The report argues that the proposed Turkish ETS is fundamentally weak due to its reliance on an intensity-based cap, broad unconditional free allocation, and the use of offsets. These design choices are expected to prevent the system from generating a meaningful carbon price signal, thereby failing to drive emissions reductions aligned with the Paris Agreement and leaving Turkish exporters exposed to significant CBAM fees. The authors recommend transitioning to an absolute declining cap, phasing out offsets, and shifting toward auctioning to retain climate revenues domestically.

The report finds that TotalEnergies' investment strategy heavily favors fossil fuels, with 4.8 dollars invested in oil and gas for every dollar spent on integrated power in 2025. The company's 2030 production targets are projected to be at least 59% higher than levels required for NZE alignment. While diversifying into renewables, the report notes this is largely through acquisitions and remains marginal, with oil and gas expected to represent 83% of the energy mix by 2030. Additionally, the company is expanding its LNG capacity and gas power production, while relying on CCUS and offsets to meet emissions targets it has recently modified, including a statement in 2026 that it could no longer commit to a 'net zero' objective.

Australia's coal sector saw a decline in methane emissions in FY2025, but this was largely due to mine closures and disruptions at underground sites like Grosvenor. Meanwhile, coal mines increased their use of carbon offsets by 40% to meet Safeguard Mechanism baselines. The report also raises integrity concerns regarding Safeguard Mechanism Credits (SMCs) issued to open-cut mines, suggesting they may result from accounting changes rather than actual emissions reductions.

The Tassiriki Call, adopted in April 2026, outlines a vision for a Fossil Fuel Free Pacific based on 100% renewable energy and the 1.5°C temperature limit. It advocates for a global Fossil Fuel Treaty, scaled-up grant-based finance, and the creation of an Inter-Governmental Taskforce for a Just Transition to a Fossil Fuel Free Pacific. The statement emphasizes the need for a managed decline of fossil fuel production and warns against the use of carbon capture and geoengineering to justify continued production.

The document argues that traditional carbon offsetting is inherently deceptive because carbon credits cannot reliably counterbalance emissions on climate-relevant timescales. It advocates for the 'beyond value chain mitigation' (BVCM) approach, where credits are treated as contributions to global climate action rather than offsets. The guide outlines principles for credible communication, including the prioritisation of internal decarbonisation and the use of transparent, non-ambiguous language. It also provides case studies of misleading claims from entities like Climate Impact Partners, Audi, and Apple, and offers recommendations for policymakers to ban offsetting claims and for consumers to identify 'red flags' in corporate communications.

The document analyzes the use of the voluntary carbon market (VCM) to finance the plugging of orphaned oil and gas wells in North America to reduce methane emissions. It evaluates four existing methodologies (ACR, BCarbon, CarbonPath, and OCP), noting that while these projects offer strong additionality and significant co-benefits, they face challenges regarding emissions quantification and long-term permanence due to a lack of empirical data on orphaned well behavior. The report provides a risk framework for buyers and developers, highlighting the tension between industry expertise in producing wells and the uncertainty of non-producing, abandoned wellbores.

Carbon Market Watch asserts that CORSIA is a "phantom scheme" due to patchy enforcement and reliance on low-quality offsets. The author highlights that US airlines, including United, Delta, and American Airlines, are unlikely to pay for their emissions under CORSIA, especially under the Trump administration. Consequently, the document urges the EU to expand the EU ETS to all departing EEA flights to generate revenue for transport decarbonisation and ensure airlines are held accountable for their carbon pollution.

Carbon Market Watch advises the European Commission against incorporating international credits into the EU's 2040 climate target. The organization argues that such a move would ignore scientific advice for 90-95% domestic emission reductions, violate the spirit of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, and expose the EU to significant financial and reputational risks. The document highlights systemic failures in carbon credit integrity, including over-crediting and human rights violations, and estimates that relying on credits for 5% of the target could result in EU emissions being 50% higher than a fully domestic target, costing up to €49.7 billion.

The document analyzes greenwashing practices, specifically focusing on H&M's 'conscious' clothing line and the carbon offsetting strategies of companies like Apple and Shell, as well as the social impacts of the Trees for Global Benefit project in Uganda.