Search Climate Insights Directory

The Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2023 finds that the majority of climate strategies among 24 assessed multinational companies lack integrity, with 2030 targets falling significantly short of the reductions needed to limit warming to 1.5°C. While all 24 companies pledged net-zero or equivalent goals, only five commit to deep decarbonisation of at least 90%. Most strategies rely on ambiguous commitments and non-credible offsetting plans, with only four companies adopting a climate contribution approach without neutralisation claims.

The report analyzes the voluntary carbon market (VCM), focusing on the opaque role of intermediaries and the lifecycle of carbon credits from creation to retirement. It identifies a lack of transparency in transaction data and pricing, noting that while project creation and end-user claims are somewhat documented, the movements of credits between issuance and retirement remain largely hidden. The analysis details the costs associated with different project types—renewable energy, household devices, and forestry—and the various fees charged by registries and intermediaries. It concludes with recommendations for registries and corporations to increase disclosure of account holders and retirement details to improve market trust.

This briefing by Carbon Market Watch highlights a critical transparency gap in the voluntary carbon market (VCM), where intermediaries—including brokers, exchanges, and resellers—often hide their fees and mark-ups. The report argues that aggregate market value figures are misleading because they do not distinguish between funds reaching project owners and profits captured by financial go-betweens. Based on research by AlliedOffsets, the document reveals that 90% of intermediaries do not disclose exact fees, and some brokers may resell credits for at least three times the purchase price. It concludes with recommendations for buyers, industry standards, and registry managers to mandate the disclosure of pricing and account holdings to ensure climate finance effectively supports mitigation action.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the EU's proposed Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) must be strictly limited to permanent carbon removals to avoid 'mitigation deterrence'. The organization recommends prohibiting the use of certified removals for offsetting emissions in the EU ETS or ESR, excluding carbon farming and carbon storage in products due to their lack of permanence, and implementing stricter quality criteria for quantification and liability. It suggests that nature-based solutions should be funded via activity-based finance for biodiversity and soil health rather than through carbon removal metrics.

The document analyzes the 2023 Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor (CCRM) findings for 24 global corporations, concluding that their net-zero targets are largely exaggerated and misleading. It highlights systemic issues such as over-reliance on low-quality carbon offsets, the exclusion of indirect emissions from carbon neutrality claims, and a lack of short-term ambition. To protect consumers, the brief recommends a complete prohibition of 'neutrality' claims in the EU, proactive enforcement by public regulators, and a shift toward a 'contribution claim' model for financing climate projects.

The 2023 Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor evaluates 24 multinational companies, finding that 15 of them have climate strategies of low or very low integrity. Key issues include ambiguous net-zero pledges, insufficient 2030 targets that fall short of 1.5°C pathways, and a heavy reliance on non-permanent biological carbon offsets. While emission disclosure transparency is moderate, the report highlights a critical '2030 blind spot' where corporate commitments do not match the required global reductions of 43-48% by 2030. The authors advocate for a shift from offsetting to a 'climate contribution' approach and call for tighter regulatory oversight to ensure corporate accountability.

Reclaim Finance proposes a framework for credible corporate climate transition plans, arguing that access to green financing should be contingent on plans that cover all emission scopes, set absolute targets aligned with 1.5°C scenarios, and include sector-specific 'red lines'. The framework emphasizes the exclusion of carbon offsets from targets, the integration of climate performance into executive remuneration, and the requirement for lobbying activities to be transparent and consistent with climate goals.

Carbon Market Watch calls for more ambitious climate action at COP27, arguing that carbon markets under Article 6 should complement, not replace, massive emissions reductions and the phase-out of fossil fuels.

The Net-Zero Insurance Alliance (NZIA) released its first Target-Setting Protocol on January 17, 2023. Reclaim Finance argues the protocol is a 'step backward' compared to other GFANZ alliances and IPCC guidelines. Key criticisms include a low minimum emission reduction target of 34% CO2e by 2030, the failure to explicitly address fossil fuel expansion, and the exclusion of treaty reinsurance and certain construction insurance from its scope. While the document notes the positive exclusion of carbon offsets from targets, it calls for the NZIA to accelerate its protocol update from late 2024 to the end of 2023.

The Climate Solutions Reporting Guide, produced by Covering Climate Now and Solutions Journalism Network, argues that while problem-focused reporting is necessary, newsrooms must broaden their coverage to include solutions to empower audiences and policymakers. It advocates for a rigorous approach that interrogates the effectiveness and limitations of proposed solutions rather than 'cheerleading'. The guide emphasizes equity and justice, noting that marginalized communities often possess effective climate action records despite contributing the least to the crisis. It organizes potential story ideas into five categories: politics and government, economics and business, technologies and practices, civil society, and culture. Key technical distinctions are provided between 'mitigation' (reducing emissions and drawing down existing gases) and 'adaptation' (increasing resilience to unavoidable impacts).

The report finds that while 92% of surveyed business leaders view reducing carbon emissions as an urgent priority, many struggle with the 'how' of decarbonization due to budget and technological constraints. Businesses increasingly view the voluntary carbon market (VCM) as a critical tool for immediate action, though concerns over greenwashing and market transparency persist. While science-based targets are widely supported, there is a significant demand for clearer, more realistic guidance to help organizations meet their 2030 and 2050 goals.

The report finds that low-cost, repeated behaviors like reducing food waste are significantly more common than high-cost, one-time installations like heat pumps or solar panels. While many who adopted these behaviors faced minimal difficulty, non-adopters cited lack of awareness and lack of interest for low-cost actions, and high cost and home ownership issues for high-cost technologies.

The report argues that nature-based solutions (NbS) and carbon offsetting schemes often serve as a facade for corporate polluters to continue emitting 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 climate or social benefits. The document specifically critiques REDD+ projects, industrial tree plantations, and soil carbon programs for their lack of 'additionality' and their role in undermining food sovereignty and indigenous land rights.

The document argues that nature-based solutions (NBS) and carbon offsets often serve as a distraction for 'Big Polluters' to continue emitting while facilitating land grabs and violating Indigenous rights. It provides detailed evidence of inflated carbon baselines, lack of additionality, and social harms across Africa, Asia Pacific, Europe, Latin America, and North America. Key examples include REDD+ projects in Zimbabwe and Gabon that overestimated carbon savings, and soil carbon initiatives in the US and Kenya that threaten food sovereignty and traditional livelihoods. The report also critiques improved cookstove offsets for using flawed accounting to generate 'fake emission cuts'.

The document argues that carbon markets and offsets are 'false climate solutions' that fail to reduce emissions, allow major polluters to continue emitting, and facilitate land grabs and human rights violations, particularly in the Global South. It details the mechanisms of the UNFCCC's Article 6, various voluntary and regional trading schemes, and provides a strategic framework for civil society to oppose these markets through policy advocacy, legal tactics, and community solidarity.

The document critiques soil carbon offset programs, asserting they do not reduce global emissions but instead serve as a mechanism for agribusinesses to maintain industrial models. It highlights risks such as the erosion of traditional agricultural knowledge, the promotion of patented seeds and chemicals, and the unreliability of soil carbon measurement. The text specifically identifies companies like Yara and Boomitra as drivers of these markets, expanding from industrial farms in the US, Australia, and Brazil into small-scale farming in Africa, India, and South America.

The document argues that carbon markets and offsetting mechanisms are ineffective 'false solutions' that allow major polluters to continue emitting while causing harm to ecosystems and communities, particularly in the Global South. It details the mechanisms of the UNFCCC's Article 6, various regional and national carbon pricing initiatives, and provides strategies for civil society to resist these systems through advocacy, legal action, and community mobilization.

The 2023 Forest Declaration Assessment finds that global finance for forests is severely inadequate, with 'gray' finance (subsidies driving deforestation) vastly outweighing 'green' finance. Public green finance averages USD 2.2 billion annually, less than 1% of estimated needs. Private financial institutions continue to provide trillions in financing to high-risk companies, while the voluntary carbon market faces declining demand and pricing due to integrity concerns. The report highlights a critical funding gap for Indigenous Peoples and local communities, who receive only 3% of the finance needed for tenure reform.

The 2023 Forest Pathways Report by WWF International highlights that the world is off track to meet 2030 goals to halt deforestation, with a 21% divergence from targets in 2022. It identifies a massive funding gap, where approximately US$2.2 billion in annual public forest-positive finance is dwarfed by up to US$1 trillion in environmentally harmful subsidies. The report emphasizes the critical role of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, noting that their territories often have lower deforestation rates. It advocates for a shift from single-value carbon offsets to a 'contributions approach' and the repurposing of agricultural subsidies. Case studies from Brazil, Colombia, Gabon, and Australia illustrate specific challenges and successful interventions in forest conservation and restoration.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the draft EU Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) is fundamentally flawed due to poor definitions of carbon removals and a failure to specify their role in climate policy. The author contends that the proposal risks promoting 'mitigation deterrence' by allowing removals to substitute for deep emission reductions and by permitting the use of temporary storage for offsetting permanent emissions. Furthermore, the document criticizes the CRCF for conflating emissions reduction with removals, utilizing vague quantification baselines, and failing to implement social protections against land grabbing.