Search Climate Insights Directory

A coalition of environmental organizations warns the European Commission that the Sustainable Carbon Cycles Communication risks undermining climate ambition if it allows carbon removals to be used as offsets for emissions. While supporting the Carbon Removal Certification Mechanism and improved climate accounting by 2028, the authors argue that removals should not be treated as tonne-for-tonne equivalents to emissions reductions. They specifically oppose the inclusion of removal offsets in the EU ETS, ESR, and LULUCF regulations, and call for a strict definition of storage permanence to distinguish real removals from short-term carbon stores.

The report maps 103 multistakeholder initiatives (MIs) to demonstrate how transnational corporations and philanthropic entities are displacing state-led multilateralism. It argues that the 'multistakeholder' rhetoric masks deep power imbalances, allowing the private sector to set global agendas, define standards, and implement market-based solutions that often undermine human rights and democratic accountability. The analysis highlights the central role of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in driving this trend, particularly through the instrumentalization of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

As of November 16, 2021, net zero target coverage reached 92% for emissions and 86% for population globally. However, the document highlights significant gaps in integrity, noting that a vast majority of country, regional, and city targets fail to specify the use of offsets, and only 32% of corporate targets cover all Scope 3 emissions. Conversely, there is growing corporate momentum, with the number of companies meeting 'minimum procedural standards' nearly doubling in the last year.

Carbon Market Watch advocates for a dual approach to carbon market activism, combining the exposure of 'brazen greenwashing'—such as 'carbon-neutral fossil fuels'—with active participation in governance bodies like the TSVCM and VCMI to ensure human rights and accounting integrity.

Friends of the Earth International criticizes the COP26 deforestation pledge as a rebranding of failed initiatives like REDD+, asserting that it facilitates corporate greenwashing through carbon credits and offsets. The statement highlights the hypocrisy of signatory nations, citing the EU-Mercosur agreement's impact on the Amazon and the lack of binding regulations to protect Indigenous Peoples' rights and stop industrial agriculture and extractive industries.

Friends of the Earth International criticizes the COP26 deforestation pledge as a 'greenwashing' effort similar to failed REDD+ initiatives. The organization contends that the reliance on carbon offsets and private financing—exemplified by the UK's funding of the LEAF coalition—enables corporations like Amazon and Unilever to continue emitting while risking land grabs in the Global South. The statement highlights contradictions, such as the EU-MERCOSUR trade agreement's impact on the Amazon and Brazil's treatment of indigenous peoples, and calls for binding human rights instruments and immediate emission cuts over market-based sinks.

Friends of the Earth International criticizes the COP26 deforestation promise as a 'relooking' of failed initiatives like REDD+, claiming it facilitates corporate carbon offsetting rather than actual emission reductions. The statement highlights the hypocrisy of signatory nations, citing the EU-Mercosur trade agreement and Brazil's treatment of indigenous peoples, and calls for binding regulations and direct climate finance instead of market-based mechanisms.

The report provides a comprehensive 'behind-the-scenes' look at the litigation brought by Milieudefensie and over 17,000 co-plaintiffs against Royal Dutch Shell. On May 26, 2021, the District Court of The Hague ruled that Shell must reduce its net carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels. The court based its decision on a 'duty of care' and the necessity to respect human rights, aligning corporate policy with the Paris Agreement. The document serves as a manual for other climate litigants, detailing strategies for funding, community mobilization, and legal argumentation, while analyzing Shell's defenses and the broader implications for corporate accountability and the energy transition.

The report examines the influence of multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) and corporate actors on the UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS). It argues that the transition from multilateralism to multi-partnership governance allows powerful multinationals and private foundations, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum, to steer global food policy toward 'technofixes' and market-based solutions. The analysis of 26 MSIs shows that corporate actors are the most influential stakeholders, often holding leadership positions. The report specifically highlights the role of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) in promoting industrial agriculture and carbon offset mechanisms, which the authors claim undermine food sovereignty and exacerbate global inequalities.

The report argues that the UN Food Systems Summit has been 'captured' by corporate interests through the use of multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs), which shift governance from state-led multilateralism to a model dominated by transnational corporations and philanthropic foundations. An analysis of 26 MSIs reveals that the private sector holds the most influence, often occupying leadership roles. The document highlights the roles of the World Economic Forum (WEF), the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), and the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) in promoting industrial agriculture and 'nature-positive' solutions that the authors claim are 'false solutions' designed to maintain corporate dominance. It specifically criticizes the appointment of AGRA's president as the UN Special Envoy for the Summit as a conflict of interest and details how companies like Nestlé and Shell use nature-based solutions to offset emissions without reducing production.

The report documents the legal victory of Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell PLC, where the District Court in The Hague ordered Shell to reduce its net carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 relative to 2019 levels. It explains the use of the 'duty of care' and human rights arguments to hold a corporate actor liable for its contribution to climate change, including Scope 3 emissions. The document also provides a 'mini-toolkit' for other NGOs planning strategic climate litigation, covering research, fundraising, and media strategies.

The report critiques the GFANZ network, noting that while it represents over a third of the world's investable capital, its guidelines are riddled with loopholes. Key failures include the lack of mandatory absolute emission targets, the omission of fossil fuel restrictions in the Race to Zero criteria, and a reliance on 'analysis paralysis' through complex financed emissions accounting. The author recommends that alliances mandate the cessation of financial services for new fossil fuel supply and require clients to adopt robust phase-out plans for coal, oil, and gas.

The document asserts that plastic is fundamentally carbon and cannot be part of a climate solution, as its production and incineration are projected to consume up to 13% of the global carbon budget for a 1.5°C limit. It systematically refutes five industry claims regarding emissions-free production, carbon-free fuel, carbon sinks, offset schemes, and bioplastics, concluding that these narratives divert policymakers from the necessary goal of reducing plastic production.

The document outlines five primary concerns regarding Article 6 of the Paris Agreement: the lack of buyer demand compared to sellers, the prevalence of unregulated private sector greenwashing, the oversupply of low-quality credits, the struggle to find high-integrity removal credits, and the risk of legacy credits from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) undermining new climate targets.

The Center for International Environmental Law asserts that COP26 faces a critical 'ambition gap' and warns against 'false solutions' such as net-zero targets and carbon capture that distract from the necessary phase-out of fossil fuels. The statement emphasizes that legitimate outcomes require equitable participation, particularly for low-income countries and Indigenous Peoples, and calls for developed nations to fulfill their $100 billion annual climate finance promise. It specifically critiques the UK's leadership for continuing North Sea oil leasing while promoting global climate action. The document advocates for a rights-based approach to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement to prevent land-grabs and double-counting of emissions, and demands the establishment of a dedicated loss and damage finance facility to support the most vulnerable communities.

The document characterizes "net-zero by 2050" pledges as a "dangerous greenwashing gimmick" that allows polluters to maintain a facade of climate action while protecting profits. It argues that net-zero is fundamentally different from "zero emissions" and relies on "unjust offsetting schemes," unproven technologies, and geoengineering. The authors contend that these schemes perpetuate environmental racism and injustice, particularly in BIPOC and low-wealth communities. The document demands that the United States, as a major historical polluter, achieve absolute greenhouse gas emissions reductions by 2030, keep fossil fuels in the ground, eliminate industrial wood biomass and factory farming, and provide international finance and technical assistance to developing countries.

The document outlines how Indigenous-led conservation, specifically through Guardian programs and Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs), provides a scalable model for climate resilience and carbon sequestration in Canada. Using the Heiltsuk Nation's 14,000-year history of stewardship as a foundation, it advocates for a convergence of traditional knowledge and western science to manage ecosystems. The author highlights the critical role of the boreal forest in storing carbon and recommends that Crown governments provide long-term investment in Indigenous-led stewardship to achieve national conservation targets.

The statement criticizes the Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance (AOA) for its 'The Net in Net Zero' paper, which encourages asset owners to scale investment in offsets and negative emissions technologies. The author contends that this focus shifts attention away from the necessary deep decarbonization and the phase-down of fossil fuel production. The text highlights the failure of previous offsetting schemes, such as the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and argues that current efforts by the AOA and the Task Force on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM) will replicate these flaws. It concludes that asset owners should follow the International Energy Agency's (IEA) 'Net Zero by 2050' report by stopping investments in new oil and gas projects.

The report finds that while net zero commitments from private financial institutions have grown rapidly, reaching USD 93.3 trillion in assets, they often lack the interim targets, detailed transition plans, and specificity in regional or sectoral investment needed for genuine Paris alignment. It highlights a strong focus on coal divestment but a significant lag in phasing out oil and gas financing and addressing biodiversity loss.

The Framework for Sustainable Finance Integrity provides a technical set of 'Necessary Action' metrics across three categories—targets and objectives, implementation, and metrics and transparency—to align the financial sector with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. It identifies significant gaps between current leading practices of major financial coalitions and the scientific requirements for a viable net zero pathway, particularly regarding short-term emissions targets, the phase-out of all fossil fuel finance, and the integration of social justice and biodiversity into financial mandates.