Search Climate Insights Directory

The report critiques the 'net zero' framework and the expansion of carbon offset markets, asserting that they create a false equivalence between carbon removals and avoided emissions. It argues that these mechanisms serve as a 'house of cards' designed to protect stranded fossil fuel assets by providing a veneer of climate action while allowing ongoing emissions. The document specifically highlights the efforts of the Task Force on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM) and the Architecture for REDD+ Transactions (ART-TREES) to standardize and commodify different types of carbon credits to increase market volume. It concludes that the only viable path to limiting warming to 1.5°C is a rapid, just transition to renewable energy and the immediate phase-out of fossil fuels, rather than reliance on speculative carbon removal technologies or flawed offsetting schemes.

The document critiques the 'fossil bet on the future,' claiming that carbon offsets and net-zero goals serve as a 'house of cards' to maintain fossil fuel dependence. It specifically targets the amalgamation of carbon capture, emission reductions, and avoided emissions into single, fungible credit units, arguing that such mechanisms do not actually reduce atmospheric CO2 and may lead to increased warming. The report highlights the role of the Task Force on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM) and ART-TREES in standardizing these credits to facilitate financial speculation and the 're-floating' of stranded assets.

The European Union is developing a certification mechanism for carbon dioxide removals (CDR) to address the lack of widely accepted standards and reduce risks to the environment and consumer protection. The Clean Air Task Force recommends that the EU adopt a framework based on the IPCC's approach, categorizing methods by removal process and storage timescale rather than the 'natural vs. technological' dichotomy. To ensure integrity, the document proposes that certified removals must be real, measurable, additional, permanent, avoid leakage, and avoid double counting. Additionally, it suggests the creation of EU-level scientific and stakeholder advisory boards to oversee the framework's implementation and its integration into voluntary and compliance markets.

The document examines the critical role of forests in climate regulation and biodiversity, noting that 420 million hectares have been lost since 1990. It analyzes the shift from failed attempts at a global forests convention to a polycentric governance system involving the UN Forum on Forests, REDD, and private sector deforestation commitments. The brief highlights the risks of carbon offsets and monoculture plantations, arguing that successful forest protection requires holistic valuation, strong political will, and the alignment of financial incentives.

Carbon Market Watch argues that an independent grievance body must be operational before any Article 6.4 activities begin to avoid reputational risks and human rights infringements. The author recommends that this body be independent of the 6.4 Supervisory Body, free of charge for stakeholders, and capable of imposing temporary measures like suspending credit issuance. The document also suggests extending this mechanism to cover Article 6.2 and compares existing voluntary carbon market standards, noting that some, like Verra, have inappropriate fee requirements.

Carbon Market Watch argues that Article 6.2 and 6.4 mechanisms lack a clear definition of "removals," leading to the risk of including "false solutions." The organization proposes four scientific principles for defining real removals: atmospheric GHG removal, permanent storage (at least 200-300 years), comprehensive accounting of process emissions, and a net-positive removal balance. Based on these, the document asserts that nature-based sequestration and point-source CCS do not qualify as permanent removals. It specifically critiques nature-based activities due to the impossibility of guaranteeing monitoring and liability for reversals over centuries, noting that buffer pools are inadequate. Instead, it suggests nature-based activities generate "Paris Agreement Support Units" to channel finance without allowing offset claims.

The report challenges the "carbon neutral" claim of the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar, finding that the estimated 3.6MtCO2e footprint likely underestimates actual emissions due to flawed accounting of stadium construction. It further argues that the carbon credits provided by the Global Carbon Council lack integrity due to non-additionality and that the event's mitigation measures, such as a desert turf farm, are not durable.

The briefing concludes that BP is not on track for the 1.5°C goal, as its projected emissions will exceed its allocated carbon budget by 2033. Despite pledges to reach Net Zero by 2050, the analysis finds that BP's short-to-medium term carbon intensity remains too high and its capital expenditure continues to favor fossil fuels over renewables.

The briefing concludes that ENI is not on track for the 1.5°C climate goal, as its cumulative greenhouse gas emissions are projected to exceed its allocated carbon budget by at least 13.6% by 2050. The analysis finds that ENI's short-to-medium term plans are incompatible with 1.5°C because the company continues to invest in oil and gas expansion, with production expected to grow until 2025. Furthermore, the report argues that ENI relies unsustainably on carbon offsets and Carbon Capture Use and Storage (CCUS) to meet its targets, while its capital expenditure remains heavily focused on fossil fuels despite claims of diversification.

The briefing concludes that Shell's strategy is not on track to meet the 1.5°C climate goal, predicting the company will exceed its allocated carbon budget by 2034. Despite a net-zero ambition for 2050, the analysis finds that Shell's short-term plans rely on unrealistic offsets and continued investment in oil and gas expansion. The report highlights that Shell remains a top global hydrocarbon developer, with approximately 90% of its 2022 CAPEX allocated to fossil fuels, which contradicts the deep emission cuts required for 1.5°C alignment.

The document argues that TotalEnergies is not on track for the 1.5°C climate goal, as its cumulative greenhouse gas emissions are projected to exceed the compatible carbon budget by at least 31.8% by 2050. It finds that the company's strategy remains driven by oil and gas expansion, with production levels expected to increase by 18.4% by 2030 compared to 2020. The analysis highlights an unsustainable reliance on carbon offsets and a CAPEX allocation that continues to favor fossil fuels over renewables.

The research identifies a broad public concern for climate change in the UK, though this is often decoupled from an understanding of 'net zero' as a specific policy solution. Using a values-based segmentation model, the study finds that while most Britons are open to 'doing their bit,' there is deep cynicism regarding political trust and the fair distribution of costs. Key findings highlight that fairness is experienced emotionally and varies by income level, with a strong consensus that the wealthy and big businesses should bear more of the financial burden. The report suggests framing net zero as an opportunity for financial wellbeing and energy independence to bridge political and social divides.

The letter asserts that GFANZ is acting as a "smokescreen" for the financial sector's lack of progress on decarbonization. It highlights a gap between GFANZ's goal of halving emissions by 2030 and the reality that many members continue to fund new coal, oil, and gas projects. The authors demand that GFANZ implement interim milestones, absolute emission targets, mandatory Scope 3 targets for fossil fuel companies, and a ban on using offsets to meet 2030 targets.

The report evaluates the impact of expanding the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) to cover more European aviation flights compared to the European Commission's (EC) proposal, which retains the EU ETS for intra-EEA flights and uses CORSIA for flights between the EEA and other participating states. Using the AERO-MS model, the study finds that expanding the EU ETS to include all outgoing flights (Scenario 1) or all outgoing and incoming flights (Scenario 2) would significantly increase emission reductions and auctioning revenues, though at a higher cost to airlines. Specifically, Scenario 2 would result in a 113% higher emission reduction than the EC proposal. The report also highlights uncertainties in CORSIA's effectiveness, noting that changes in the baseline or non-participation of major aviation countries could reduce its emission reductions by up to 77%.

Reclaim Finance assesses TotalEnergies' 2022 climate plan as insufficient, noting that the company's emissions are projected to decrease by only 5.8% to 6.7% between 2015 and 2030. The analysis highlights a 'fossil-first' investment strategy where over 70% of CAPEX remains dedicated to oil and gas, and criticizes the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) as fundamentally incompatible with climate goals. The document urges shareholders to vote against the management-sponsored climate resolution at the 2022 AGM.

The document outlines the business case and technical process for seafood companies to adopt Science-Based Targets (SBTs) to mitigate climate change. It highlights that while seafood generally has a lower carbon footprint than land-based proteins, the industry faces significant risks from ocean warming and acidification. The guide details a process of data collection, GHG accounting using Life Cycle Assessments (LCA), and target setting through the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi). Key reduction strategies include the electrification of fishing vessels, the development of low-carbon aquaculture feed, and the reduction of air freight. It emphasizes that Scope 3 emissions—particularly from feed and transport—represent the largest challenge and require pre-competitive collaboration across the value chain.

The methodology evaluates carbon credits across seven quality objectives: robust GHG impact determination, avoidance of double counting, addressing non-permanence, facilitating the transition to net zero, institutional arrangements of the crediting program, environmental and social impacts, and host country ambition. It employs a standardized scoring system (1-5) using point systems and 'inverse weighing' to ensure that a low score in one critical criterion cannot be offset by high scores in others. The guide focuses on ex-post credits and provides detailed indicators for assessing additionality, vulnerability in collapsed markets, and the alignment of credits with the Paris Agreement's Article 6 and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

The document provides a framework for financial institutions to assess whether a counterparty's transition plan is credible, emphasizing quantitative targets, whole-institution integration, and sustainability. It argues that financial institutions should move beyond risk assessment to 'double materiality'—considering a company's impact on the climate. The brief also addresses the need for capacity building in developing economies and the advocacy for global, standardized climate disclosure frameworks to reduce greenwashing and ensure a just transition.

The report examines the marginalization of agricultural biodiversity within the CBD and argues that industrial agriculture is a primary driver of biodiversity loss. It contrasts the 'peasant food web' with the 'agro-industrial chain,' highlighting the superior ecological and social outcomes of small-scale farming. The document criticizes 'false solutions' such as carbon offsets, sustainable intensification, and Nature-based Solutions (NbS), which it claims mask corporate interests. It calls for the new Global Biodiversity Framework to explicitly promote agroecology, protect the rights of indigenous peoples and small-scale farmers, and phase out industrial agricultural practices and harmful subsidies.

The report examines the marginalization of agricultural biodiversity within the CBD and the destructive impact of industrial agriculture on ecosystems. It contrasts the 'industrial food chain' with the 'peasant food web', arguing that agroecology is the only viable pathway to climate resilience and biodiversity restoration. The document criticizes 'false solutions' like carbon offsets and sustainable intensification, and provides recommendations for the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework to prioritize human rights, phase out industrial agriculture, and regulate agribusiness.