Search Climate Insights Directory

The document evaluates the performance of BeZero, Calyx, Renoster, and Sylvera, noting that while their frameworks are generally well-conceived, stark differences in project assessments can create market confusion and risk legitimising low-quality credits. It provides specific recommendations for agencies to improve their handling of reversal risk, leakage, and additionality, while advising buyers to focus blame on low-scoring projects rather than the rating agencies themselves.

The Lendable Decarbonization Fund (LDF) is an innovative financial instrument designed to provide sustainability-linked loans (SLLs) to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and middle market companies (MMEs) in emerging economies. By utilizing the proprietary Maestro technology for real-time monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV), the LDF aims to reduce the administrative costs that typically prevent smaller firms from accessing SLLs. The fund also includes a Carbon Project Preparation Facility (CPPF) to provide technical assistance and grants for developing carbon offset projects. LDF targets an initial assets under management (AUM) of USD 250 million by year three and USD 500 million by year five, focusing on sectors such as energy access, energy efficiency, renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and transport across Africa, Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Latin America.

The document argues against the use of Expected Emission Reductions (EER) and avoided emissions as metrics for transition finance, claiming they rely on subjective, non-conservative baselines and risk rewarding high polluters. It advocates for the use of Expected Cumulative Emissions (ECE) to monitor alignment with net-zero pathways and emphasizes that transition finance should not be used to support the fossil fuel sector, which the author asserts is making performative efforts to transition.

The report establishes a framework for assessing temporary carbon storage, asserting that because CO2 emissions have effectively permanent impacts, storage lasting only decades or a century cannot offset emissions without risking higher long-term temperatures. It argues that economic equivalence claims are irrelevant to the physical targets of the Paris Agreement and suggests a minimum storage requirement of 100 years based on the precautionary principle and current global emissions trajectories.

The report concludes that all analyzed policy frameworks are inadequate for the robust deployment of carbon dioxide removals (CDR). Most frameworks fail to establish a clear firewall between emissions reductions and removals, often treating them as interchangeable through offsetting mechanisms. Key deficiencies include the absence of legally binding, separate CDR targets, the lack of a robust definition of CDR that ensures long-term permanence, and insufficient monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems. The authors recommend that CDR be strictly defined as a secondary climate function to balance residual emissions, supported by dedicated legal targets and rigorous accounting to prevent 'mitigation deterrence'.

The report finds that TotalEnergies' 2030 oil and gas production targets and carbon intensity are significantly higher than those required by the IEA's 1.5°C-aligned Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenario. It highlights a substantial investment gap, noting that in 2022, the company invested more than three dollars in oil and gas for every dollar invested in its Integrated Gas, Renewables and Power division, while distributing over four dollars to shareholders for every dollar invested in that same division. The analysis concludes that the company's reliance on carbon capture and offsets, combined with continued expansion into unconventional resources like Arctic and ultra-deep water, poses a material risk to its ability to meet decarbonization targets.

The Canadian Climate Institute outlines five key areas of concern regarding the federal Clean Electricity Regulations (CER), including the treatment of gas-powered facilities built after 2025, the 'prescribed' lifespan of existing gas plants, rules for using gas to balance renewables, the management of post-2035 residual emissions, and the potential shift from output-based to full carbon pricing for the electricity sector.

Carbon Market Watch argues that current carbon market mechanisms, such as buffer pools and insurance, are insufficient to guarantee the multi-century permanence required for carbon removals to credibly offset ongoing emissions. The organization recommends extending project proponent monitoring responsibilities to at least 100 years, implementing strict reversal notification timelines (within 30 days), and requiring the automatic cancellation of unused buffer credits. To address equity concerns, it suggests that liability for reversals should shift to acquiring Parties or be funded via top-off fees and a Secretariat-managed satellite monitoring system, rather than falling on host Parties, many of which are developing nations.

The report identifies 19 private equity firms investing in 35 oil and gas companies that have received federal drilling permits since 2017. It estimates that U.S. taxpayers could face up to $384 million in cleanup costs for nearly 2,700 wells operated by these private-equity-backed companies across eight states, with Colorado and New Mexico facing the highest liabilities. The authors argue that the private equity business model—characterized by high leverage and quick exits—combined with outdated federal bonding requirements (averaging only $2,122 per well) and bankruptcy laws, allows firms to externalize environmental costs. The document also highlights 'greenwashing' strategies, such as the promotion of 'certified gas,' used to maintain investor support despite ongoing fossil fuel expansion.

The document defines 'high-hanging fruit' as decarbonisation measures that are inaccessible to host governments due to extraordinary costs or insurmountable barriers. It argues that these projects are essential for enhancing overall climate ambition and proposes a shift in how voluntary climate finance and carbon crediting mechanisms identify and fund them. The author suggests redefining 'additionality' to include project inaccessibility, introducing specific labels for such projects, establishing dedicated funds for climate contributions, and calling for leadership from corporations and intermediaries to develop a project pipeline.

The Corporate Commitments and Emissions Explorer uses a formula-based approach to estimate corporate emissions trajectories, incorporating revenue growth, climate targets, and sectoral intensities. It offers five preset outlooks—Current, Climate-Aligned Action, Herd Catches Leaders, Laggards Catch Herd, and No Further Action—to simulate different levels of corporate ambition. The tool focuses on Scope 1 and 2 emissions, utilizing data from CDP and the Net Zero Tracker, while excluding Scope 3 emissions due to data quality and double-counting risks. Companies are categorized as ambitious, somewhat ambitious, or least ambitious based on their disclosure habits, emission intensities, and the nature of their climate commitments.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) supports the BLM's proposed Conservation and Landscape Health rule, arguing that conservation leases are a valid tool for implementing the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) mandates. CATF recommends that the rule be structured to avoid hindering the buildout of electric transmission and renewable energy, specifically suggesting a two-mile buffer around energy corridors where leases are restricted to permittees. The document also advocates for integrating carbon sequestration and climate resilience into the 'fundamentals of land health' and strongly advises against allowing conservation leases to generate marketable carbon offset credits due to a lack of permanence in the proposed 10-year lease terms.

The NewClimate Institute introduces the concept of climate contributions as a financial commitment to support global climate action without claiming to offset or neutralise a company's own emissions. This approach is presented as a necessary alternative to traditional carbon offsetting, which the authors argue can undermine decarbonisation progress.

The statement criticizes a Ceres paper titled "Key Elements for a Net Zero Transition at Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Companies," claiming it fails to require absolute emission reductions or alignment with 1.5°C pathways. The authors argue that because Ceres advises the Glasgow Financial Alliance on Net Zero (GFANZ), this weak framework could erode established norms for net-zero finance by favoring the interests of the oil and gas industry, specifically citing the involvement of companies like ConocoPhillips and Pioneer Natural Resources in the paper's development.

Reclaim Finance analyzes the Ceres document "Key Elements for a Net Zero Transition at Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Companies," concluding that it favors "business as usual" for the fossil fuel industry. The analysis identifies seven key weaknesses, including the failure to require Scope 3 targets, the reliance on intensity-based rather than absolute emission targets, and a lack of restrictions on carbon offsets. Reclaim Finance asserts that the Ceres framework is influenced by industry players like ConocoPhillips and fails to meet the standards set by GFANZ, the IPCC, and the IEA, which necessitate absolute production cuts to maintain a 1.5°C pathway.

The Net Zero Stocktake 2023 finds that while the number of entities with net zero targets has grown to 1,475, a significant portion of sub-national governments and large companies still lack any emission reduction targets. While national targets are increasingly underpinned by legislation, there is limited improvement in the robustness of corporate and sub-national strategies, particularly regarding Scope 3 emissions and the use of offsets. Notably, no major fossil fuel producers have committed to phasing out fossil fuels despite having net zero pledges.

The Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) establishes a screening process for sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs) to ensure they drive genuine decarbonisation. Inclusion requires eligible debt instruments to be self-labelled as SLBs and provide public disclosure of sustainability performance targets (SPTs). CBI assesses these targets against 1.5°C-aligned sectoral pathways from CBI, the Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI), the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), and CRREM. Bonds are categorized as 'Fully-aligned', 'Strongly-aligned', 'Aligning', or 'not-aligned' based on their adherence to these pathways and the presence of comprehensive transition plans. The methodology specifically mandates scope 3 emission targets for companies selling fossil fuel products and airports.

The Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) establishes a methodology to track Sustainability Linked Bonds (SLBs) that support decarbonization. To be included, instruments must be certifiable debt, self-labeled as SLBs or similar, and provide sufficient disclosure of Sustainability Performance Targets (SPTs). CBI assesses these targets against 1.5°C-aligned industry pathways, categorizing bonds as 'Fully-aligned', 'Strongly-aligned', or 'Aligning' based on their consistency with these paths and the presence of comprehensive transition plans. The methodology emphasizes the inclusion of material emissions (Scopes 1, 2, and 3) and utilizes both CBI-specific and third-party pathways (e.g., TPI, SBTi, CRREM) to evaluate various sectors including cement, steel, and aviation.

Carbon Market Watch advocates for a legally binding EU target of over 90% gross emissions cuts by 2040 to achieve domestic net zero. The organization argues for 'turbo charging' the EU ETS by increasing linear reduction factors, phasing out free allowances by 2030 in favor of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), and keeping carbon removals strictly separate from the ETS to avoid offsetting and ensure deep decarbonization. It also calls for the expansion of the ETS to full scope for aviation and shipping and the use of auctioning revenues for transparent climate projects.

Reclaim Finance evaluates the revised Climate Action 100+ benchmark, noting that while it now incorporates IEA Net Zero Emissions by 2050 scenarios and requires disclosure of capital expenditures on carbon-intensive assets, it remains flawed. Key limitations include an over-reliance on disclosure over alignment, a lack of prioritization among indicators, and insufficient requirements for absolute emission reductions and scope 3 emissions in certain sectors.