Search Climate Insights Directory

ClientEarth proposes a series of legislative reforms for the UK to accelerate its transition to net zero by 2050 and protect biodiversity. Key recommendations include the introduction of an Environmental Rights Bill to comply with the Aarhus Convention, the implementation of mandatory corporate transition plans, and a ban on fossil fuel advertising and carbon offsetting. The document also calls for the UK to withdraw from the Energy Charter Treaty, accelerate fine particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution reduction targets to 2030, and ensure 30% of land and sea are effectively protected by 2030. Additionally, it urges the government to address the 'Dieselgate' scandal by supporting affected consumers and funding a clean-up fund.

The report argues that the fossil fuel industry has shifted from outright climate denial to a strategy of 'duplicity,' using greenwashing and misleading claims to protect profits while expanding fossil fuel production. It details how companies like ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and Chevron overstate their clean energy investments, set unrealistic or retracted emissions goals, promote unviable 'false solutions' such as carbon capture and algae biofuels, use front groups to lobby against climate policy, and shift responsibility for emissions onto individual consumers.

The statement critiques the current state of financial sector decarbonization targets, noting that data gaps and flawed methodologies allow institutions to manipulate metrics. It calls for better-designed goals and stricter exclusion policies to ensure alignment with the 1.5 °C target and a halt to fossil fuel expansion.

The document argues that climate change is a human rights crisis driven by a small number of 'Carbon Majors' in the fossil fuel and agroindustrial sectors. It asserts that States have a duty under the American Convention on Human Rights to regulate these entities, halt fossil fuel expansion, and ensure reparations for affected communities. It further argues that business enterprises have an independent obligation to respect human rights, which includes conducting due diligence across their entire value chain and ceasing deceptive 'climate-washing' practices.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) views Canada's new oil and gas emissions cap framework as a necessary foundation for a sector-specific cap-and-trade system, but warns that the proposed 2030 reduction target of 16-20% relative to 2005 levels is insufficient compared to the broader economy-wide goal of 40-45%. The IISD expresses concern over compliance flexibilities, such as carbon offsets and decarbonization fund payments, which it argues may undermine actual emissions reductions. To align with the 2022 Emissions Reduction Plan, the IISD recommends strengthening the 2030 target toward a 40% reduction and minimizing the use of offsets.

The document outlines ten principles for coal retirement mechanisms (CRMs), emphasizing the immediate cessation of coal expansion, the replacement of lost power with sustainable renewables, and the use of concessional financing in developing countries. It argues that CRMs must avoid emissions leakage, carbon offsets, and retrofitting delays while ensuring transparency and the remediation of social and environmental harms.

The policy brief argues that existing coal retirement mechanisms (CRMs) in Asia and Africa are failing to translate pledges into funding and effective plant closures. It identifies barriers such as the prevalence of non-concessional loans, the risk of 'emission leakage,' and the moral hazard of incentivizing new coal build-out. To address these, Reclaim Finance and 11 partner organizations propose ten principles, which include an immediate stop to coal expansion finance, the replacement of coal with renewables rather than gas, the prohibition of tradeable carbon offsets, and the requirement for transparent, auction-based retirement processes.

The policy brief argues that existing coal retirement mechanisms (CRMs) in Asia and Africa, such as Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs), are failing due to insufficient funding, reliance on non-concessional loans, and lack of transparency. To address these failures, the authors propose ten principles. These include aligning phaseouts with 1.5°C pathways, immediately stopping all coal expansion finance, replacing coal only with sustainable renewables, and prohibiting the use of tradeable carbon offsets. The brief emphasizes that financing must be concessional to avoid increasing national debt and that the process must include social and environmental remediation for affected communities and workers.

The brief provides scientific and legal arguments to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, asserting that the climate emergency constitutes a threat to fundamental human rights. It emphasizes that States have a positive obligation to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions based on the best available science, specifically the 1.5°C target. The document argues that this duty includes regulating 'Carbon Majors' and avoiding 'false solutions' like carbon offsetting and unproven geoengineering, which may undermine genuine decarbonization. It concludes that failure to take effective, science-based action violates the rights to life, health, and a healthy environment, particularly for marginalized groups and future generations.

The We Mean Business Coalition calls for COP28 to establish clear fossil fuel phase-out deadlines, sector-specific targets, and more ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). The coalition emphasizes the need for increased finance for nature-based solutions, support for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and global financial system reforms to ensure a just transition.

The document defines REDD+ and traces its evolution from a UNFCCC results-based finance mechanism to the use of private standards like the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) for generating tradable carbon credits. It asserts that REDD+ projects, primarily located in the Global South, frequently overestimate their climate impact due to methodological flexibility in baseline setting, leakage, and permanence. The author argues that biological carbon storage cannot fully offset fossil fuel emissions and calls for more stringent, science-aligned standards and alternative financial avenues for forest conservation.

The report finds that comprehensive requirements for benefit sharing arrangements are not common practice across major carbon crediting programmes. While some projects, particularly those under Plan Vivo, demonstrate best practices by providing detailed monitoring reports on monetary and non-monetary benefits, many others provide only procedural information or limited evidence of actual implementation. Major carbon crediting programmes like Verra (VCS), CAR, and ACR have largely resisted mandatory disclosure of benefit sharing terms, citing commercial confidentiality and a lack of institutional expertise to monitor downstream financial flows.

The briefing reveals a systemic lack of rules and enforcement regarding benefit sharing arrangements (BSAs) in the voluntary carbon market. An analysis by Öko-Institut found that only two of five assessed carbon standards referenced BSAs, and only four of 47 reviewed projects provided clear evidence of benefit sharing with stakeholders beyond project implementers. The document argues that payments for results (such as payments for ecosystem services) are often incorrectly conflated with benefit sharing, which should instead be a distribution of revenues. It further notes that major standards like CAR, ACR, and VCS have opposed mandatory BSA rules from the ICVCM, citing confidentiality and capacity constraints.

The document examines the prevalence and quality of benefit-sharing agreements in the voluntary carbon market (VCM). Based on an Öko-Institut study, it finds that most carbon standards and projects lack clear, enforceable mechanisms to distribute financial and non-financial benefits to local communities. It highlights a critical confusion between 'benefit-sharing' and 'payment for results' (such as salaries or payments for ecosystem services), arguing that the former should be a separate share of profits. The brief concludes that the absence of uniform definitions and the opposition of major standards to mandatory rules hinder the equitable distribution of carbon credit revenues.

The document analyzes the lack of standardized rules for benefit-sharing agreements (BSAs) in the voluntary carbon market, finding that most carbon standards and projects fail to provide evidence of equitable benefit distribution to indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs).

The document reports on a study by the Öko-Institut commissioned by Carbon Market Watch, which found that benefit-sharing arrangements (BSAs) in the voluntary carbon market are largely insufficient and lack transparency. Analysis of five carbon standards and 47 projects revealed that most standards do not require BSAs, and very few projects provide evidence of distributing benefits beyond simple performance-based payments. The brief argues that performance payments (like salaries) should not be conflated with benefit-sharing and calls for the Integrity Council for Voluntary Carbon Markets (ICVCM) to mandate standardized, transparent BSA rules.

The document argues that current carbon dioxide removal (CDR) policies often encourage 'mitigation deterrence' by treating removals as equivalent to emission reductions. It reviews various mechanisms—including emissions trading systems, tax credits, and voluntary markets—and concludes that most fail to ensure environmental integrity or permanence. The authors propose a 'blueprint' for sensible policy that strictly separates emission reduction targets from removal targets, mandates robust monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV), and prioritizes the 'Do No Significant Harm' principle. It suggests that funding for CDR should come from carbon pricing revenues or dedicated procurement schemes rather than offsetting mechanisms.

The report argues that nature-based solutions (NBS) and carbon offset schemes often serve as 'escapes' for major polluters to continue emitting greenhouse gases while facilitating land grabbing and violating human rights. It provides numerous case studies across Africa, Asia-Pacific, Europe, and the Americas, highlighting systemic issues such as inflated carbon baselines, lack of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC), and the failure of projects to deliver promised carbon reductions or community benefits. Specific examples include REDD+ projects in Gabon and Zimbabwe, soil carbon initiatives in Kenya and the US, and cookstove offsets in India.

The document is a curated list of resources published between 2005 and 2023 that challenge the validity and ethics of various climate mitigation strategies. It categorizes these resources into reports and briefings, blogs, articles, press releases, and other media. The listed materials focus on the perceived dangers of carbon markets, geoengineering, and corporate-led 'net zero' strategies, often framing them as 'false solutions' that may facilitate continued fossil fuel use or result in 'green colonialism'.

Reclaim Finance strongly opposes the GFANZ proposal to introduce 'Expected Emission Reductions' (EER) as a metric for transition finance. The organization argues that EER relies on subjective, unprovable counterfactual baselines—similar to the failed logic of carbon offsets—which would allow financial institutions and polluters to manipulate data to justify continued funding for fossil fuels. While Reclaim Finance supports the concept of 'Expected Cumulative Emissions' (ECE) to track alignment with net zero, it warns that 'avoided emissions' metrics are generally unsuitable for climate solutions, except in the specific case of managed phaseouts of high-emission infrastructure like coal plants. The document concludes that instead of creating complex new metrics, financial institutions should improve financed emissions methodologies and adopt robust transition plans including strict exclusion criteria and an end to fossil fuel expansion finance.