Search Climate Insights Directory

Carbon Market Watch argues that the UNFCCC's Recognition and Accountability Framework must prevent greenwashing by prohibiting the use of carbon offsets for within-value chain mitigation. The submission proposes strict criteria for net-zero pledges, including coverage of scopes 1-3 and transparency in reporting absolute emissions. It further suggests that non-compliance should lead to the revocation of UNFCCC privileges, such as observer status, for high-emitting non-state actors.

The guidance introduces the 'Triple A' framework (Ambition, Action, and Accountability) and five specific 'Hallmarks' to evaluate corporate transition plans. It emphasizes that credible plans must feature science-based, time-bound targets covering all material GHG emissions (Scopes 1, 2, and 3), detailed financial plans, and strong board-level governance. The document warns against the over-reliance on carbon offsets and the use of national NDCs as a substitute for sectoral science-based pathways, while advocating for annual third-party verification to ensure transparency and accountability.

The paper evaluates the impact of forest fires on the permanence of six REDD+ projects certified under the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) Program. Using remote sensing, documentation analysis, and surveys, the authors found that while some loss events and one reversal occurred, credit permanence was maintained due to the use of capitalized buffer pools. The study also suggests that NCS projects can provide fire-mitigation benefits that exceed minimum carbon crediting requirements.

The author contends that carbon markets are unsuitable for incentivising high-quality carbon removals because they favour the cheapest offsetting options over expensive technological solutions. The document criticises the EU's Carbon Removals Certification Framework (CRCF) for being too vague, lacking safeguards against mitigation deterrence, and potentially enabling greenwashing by allowing certified credits to be sold on the voluntary carbon market. It proposes that the EU's 2040 target should be split into three distinct targets—emission reductions, land-based sinks, and technical removals—to prevent the conflation of reductions and removals into a single net target.

The 2023 Forest Declaration Assessment finds the world is off track to eliminate deforestation and forest degradation by 2030. In 2022, global gross deforestation reached 6.6 million hectares, a 4% increase from 2021. While some countries like Indonesia and Malaysia show progress, massive losses continue in tropical Latin America and the Caribbean. The report highlights a critical funding gap, noting that 'gray' public finance (subsidies driving deforestation) vastly outweighs 'green' finance. It also emphasizes the ongoing violence against environmental defenders and the systemic lack of legal recognition for Indigenous Peoples' and local communities' land rights.

A fact sheet by the Alliance for Renewable Electrification (ARE) and Konrad Adenauer Foundation (KAS) highlighting the potential for decentralized renewable energy (DRE) to create over 40,000 direct jobs in Ghana and Senegal by 2030. It emphasizes that DRE creates more jobs than fossil fuels or large-scale renewables and provides a pathway to formal employment for women, youth, and informal workers. The document outlines policy recommendations for West African governments, including VAT exemptions for equipment, carbon finance exploration, and gender-inclusive energy policies.

The document highlights the potential for decentralised renewable energy (DRE) to create significant employment in West Africa, projecting that Ghana and Senegal could create over 40,000 direct DRE jobs by 2030 with appropriate policy measures. It emphasizes that DRE generates more direct jobs than utility-scale renewables and creates numerous derived jobs in agriculture and local businesses. To achieve this, the authors recommend a series of governance, financial, and social interventions, including VAT exemptions for equipment, the establishment of dedicated rural electrification agencies, and targeted training for women and youth.

The study finds that while forest fires are a threat, the VCS Program's pooled buffer account is adequately capitalized to guarantee credit permanence. Analysis of six REDD+ projects shows that some, such as the Katingan Peatland Restoration Project, generate fire-mitigation co-benefits through advanced management practices, while others do not. Only one reversal was identified across 190 AFOLU projects, which was fully compensated by the buffer pool.

The report finds that companies purchasing voluntary carbon credits are generally climate leaders who outperform non-buyers in emissions transparency, target ambition, and direct decarbonization investments, suggesting credits are used as a supplement to, rather than a replacement for, internal emissions reductions.

The playbook argues that infrastructure is a primary driver of biodiversity loss and climate change, contributing approximately 79% of global greenhouse gas emissions. It advocates for a shift from 'no net loss' to 'nature-positive' development, where biodiversity gain is central to design. Based on an analysis of nearly 200 projects, the guide categorizes solutions across transport, energy, water, buildings, and coastal protection. Key findings highlight an implementation bias toward well-known solutions like reforestation, while more complex options like peatland restoration remain underutilized. The document emphasizes that nature-based solutions can complement or replace 'grey' infrastructure, offering superior adaptability to climate change and providing diverse co-benefits including improved water quality, carbon sequestration, and social well-being.

The document asserts that REDD+ forestry credits are not equivalent to emission reductions due to systematic failures in five key areas: overestimated baselines, underestimated permanence risks, underestimated leakage, exaggerated carbon accounting, and weak safeguards. It concludes that current offsetting is unfit for purpose and recommends rigorous scrutiny, independent data verification, and a ban on using forest carbon storage to offset fossil fuel emissions.

The statement warns that fossil fuel companies are leveraging taxpayer-funded DACCS technology to offset emissions and maintain their social license to operate. It highlights Occidental Petroleum's Stratos project as a primary example of how carbon capture can be linked to enhanced oil recovery (EOR), which may actually increase net CO2 emissions. The author urges EU policymakers to ensure the Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) bans the use of removals for offsetting to prevent similar corporate greenwashing in Europe.

The document critiques the use of temporary carbon storage as a climate solution, asserting that unless carbon is stored for significantly more than a century, it cannot physically offset the permanent impact of fossil fuel emissions. It argues that such schemes are often driven by economic interests seeking to avoid emission reductions and that they unfairly burden future generations with the risk of carbon release. The author calls for policymakers, particularly in the European Union, to prohibit temporary storage as carbon offsets and establish minimum durability requirements.

The voluntary carbon market (VCM) is currently hindered by subjective data, lack of transparency, and burdensome processes. To realize its potential for climate finance, the market must shift toward objective measurement using digital and satellite technologies, adopt transparent pricing, and establish a consensus on credit quality through improved certification and governance models.

The report identifies critical methodological failures in Verra's REDD+ carbon credit system, specifically regarding overestimated baselines, underestimated leakages, inflated carbon accounting, and ignored permanence risks. It concludes that these credits do not represent real emission reductions and should not be used to offset fossil fuel emissions, recommending a shift from 'offsetting' to 'contribution' funding for forest conservation.

The report identifies critical methodological failures in REDD+ forestry projects certified by Verra, specifically regarding baselines, leakage, carbon accounting, permanence, and safeguards. It argues that project developers exploit methodological flexibility to inflate emission reductions, resulting in low-quality carbon credits that do not represent real climate benefits. The document concludes that REDD+ credits are not equivalent to emission reductions and should not be used to offset fossil fuel emissions.

The report identifies systemic failures in Verra's REDD+ methodologies, specifically regarding baseline inflation, underestimated leakage, exaggerated carbon accounting, and underestimated reversal risks. It argues that these flaws allow project developers to maximize credit issuance through 'convenience' selections rather than scientific accuracy. The document concludes that REDD+ credits do not represent real emission reductions and should not be used to offset fossil fuel emissions, recommending a shift toward 'contribution' claims and stricter, independent oversight.

The report finds that REDD+ projects under Verra's methodologies systematically over-credit their climate benefits due to inflated baselines, underestimated leakage, and exaggerated forest carbon stocks. It further argues that social safeguards are often treated as a 'check-box activity,' failing to protect vulnerable forest communities from displacement and rights violations. The authors conclude that REDD+ is ill-suited for generating carbon offsets and recommend a shift toward a contributions-based approach and rights-based safeguards.

The document evaluates four carbon credit rating agencies (BeZero, Calyx Global, Sylvera, and Renoster), finding that while their frameworks generally support higher market integrity, significant discrepancies exist in how they assess additionality, non-permanence, and leakage. These differences can lead to starkly contrasting ratings for the same project, potentially confusing buyers and risking the legitimization of low-quality credits. The brief recommends that agencies adopt a 100-year reversal risk period, incorporate safeguards into overall quality scores, and increase transparency of their frameworks. It further advises buyers to move away from 'carbon neutrality' claims and instead use ratings to understand the specific trade-offs and nuances of the credits they purchase.

The report evaluates the methodologies of four carbon credit rating agencies (BeZero, Calyx, Renoster, and Sylvera) to determine if they deliver on claims of increasing market transparency and integrity. Using the Carbon Credit Quality Initiative (CCQI) as a benchmark, the analysis finds that Calyx employs the most stringent approach, while BeZero and Sylvera are rated as adequate. Renoster's data-centric, algorithmic approach is deemed incomparable to the others. Key findings highlight significant differences in how agencies treat additionality as a limiting factor, the inclusion of leakage in overall scores, and the transparency of their rating justifications. The report recommends greater alignment with financial rating standards, mandatory inclusion of leakage in final scores, and increased public disclosure of project-specific frameworks.