Search Climate Insights Directory

Carbon Market Watch analyzed 18 "carbon neutral" fossil fuel claims, primarily involving liquefied natural gas (LNG), and found that every claim failed to meet basic criteria for environmental integrity and transparency. The report argues that fossil fuels cannot be carbon neutral because the firms involved are not aligned with 1.5°C pathways and rely on flawed "tonne-for-tonne" offsetting. Key failures include the omission of Scope 3 emissions in one-third of claims, a total lack of transparency regarding the price paid for carbon credits, and the use of impermanent nature-based sinks to offset long-term fossil carbon emissions. The report recommends that fossil fuel firms cease these claims, stop new exploration, and shift toward a "contribution" model for climate finance.

The fact sheet identifies six corporate entities—BP, Microsoft, IETA, BlackRock, Shell, and Drax—that the author claims are using "net zero" agendas to mask continued fossil fuel investment, rely on unproven technology, and influence policymakers through extensive lobbying and partnerships surrounding COP26.

The fact sheet details how six major corporate players—BP, Microsoft, Drax, IETA, BlackRock, and Shell—employ 'net zero' agendas to maintain business-as-usual operations. It contends that these entities promote 'false solutions' such as carbon offsets, BECCS, and hydrogen to delay emissions cuts at the source. The document further highlights the influence of these corporations on COP26 through sponsorship, lobbying, and participation in industry-led initiatives like the Race to Zero and the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets.

The document critiques the 'net zero' narrative promoted by the UK presidency of COP26, arguing that it ignores historical responsibility and relies on scientifically flawed assumptions about carbon removal. It warns that 'net zero' acts as a 'Trojan horse' for dangerous geoengineering and allows polluters to use carbon offsets to maintain business-as-usual emissions. The author calls for a shift toward 'real zero' targets, absolute emission reductions by the Global North, and the exclusion of corporate polluters from COP26.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) rejects Nature-based Solutions (NbS), characterizing the term as a 'wolf in sheep's clothing.' The organization contends that NbS is too vague, allowing harmful practices like industrial monoculture plantations to be labeled as 'natural.' FoEI argues that NbS serves as a greenwashing tool for fossil fuel and agro-industrial companies to justify 'net zero' claims through carbon offsetting rather than actual emission reductions. The document warns that the scale of land required for these projects leads to land grabbing and violates the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, particularly in the Global South. Instead of NbS, FoEI advocates for systemic change through agroecology, community forest management, and a coordinated phase-out of fossil fuels.

The document critiques the carbon market mechanisms being negotiated under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, specifically Articles 6.2, 6.4, and 6.8. It argues that these markets allow developed countries and fossil fuel companies to avoid direct emission reductions through offsetting, which the author claims is incompatible with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The briefing highlights technical concerns such as double counting and the lack of a legally binding demand for carbon credits, while emphasizing the risks to Indigenous peoples and local communities, including land grabbing and forced displacement. It calls for a shift toward non-market approaches and the fulfillment of public climate finance obligations by the Global North.

Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) rejects Nature Based Solutions (NBS), characterizing it as a 'wolf in sheep's clothing' that instrumentalizes nature to serve corporate profits and 'net-zero' offsetting schemes. The document contends that NBS promotes monoculture plantations, enables the financialization of nature, and threatens the sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. FOEI argues that NBS distracts from the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels and instead advocates for systemic changes such as agroecology and Community Forest Management (CFM).

The briefing note critiques the 'net zero' agenda promoted by the UK presidency at COP26, arguing that the concept allows governments and corporations to maintain fossil fuel pathways through deceptive accounting and unproven technologies. It contends that net zero ignores historical responsibility, is inequitable to the global South, and relies on the physical impossibility of natural sinks absorbing all combusted fossil carbon. The author warns that the confusion between carbon removals and offsets is being exploited to create a carbon market potentially worth US$50-100 billion by 2030, which diverts investment from systemic transformation. Friends of the Earth International demands a focus on 'real zero', absolute emissions reductions by 2030, the exclusion of corporate polluters from COP26, and the fulfillment of climate finance obligations by Northern countries.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) rejects Nature-based Solutions (NbS), characterizing the term as a "wolf in sheep's clothing" that masks neocolonialism and corporate greenwashing. The document contends that NbS promotes industrial monoculture plantations and the financialization of nature, which threatens the land rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities, particularly in the Global South. FoEI argues that NbS serves as a distraction from the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels and instead advocates for systemic changes through agroecology and community forest management.

The document critiques the 'net zero' framework promoted by the UK presidency and the 'Race to Zero' initiative for COP26. It asserts that net zero ignores historical responsibility, relies on physically impossible natural carbon sinks, and serves as a 'Trojan horse' for dangerous geoengineering. The author distinguishes between 'removals' and 'offsets', arguing that the latter maintain the status quo and divert investment from systemic transformation. Friends of the Earth International demands a shift toward 'real zero' (absolute emissions reductions), the exclusion of polluting companies from COP26, and the fulfillment of climate finance obligations by Northern countries to support the Global South.

The document examines how Multistakeholder Initiatives (MSIs) and corporate entities influence the UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS). It argues that the transition from state-led multilateralism to multistakeholderism allows transnational corporations and private foundations to direct policy and promote 'technofixes' and 'nature-based solutions' that maintain corporate dominance while ignoring structural inequalities and food sovereignty.

The submission by CSC to the IMO's 77th session argues for a robust carbon pricing mechanism for international shipping that avoids offsets and exemptions. It proposes a high carbon price—potentially $400/tonne or more in this decade—to bridge the gap between fossil and zero-carbon fuels and drive rapid decarbonization. The document emphasizes that revenues should be used for climate rebates to vulnerable nations, such as low-income small island developing States (SIDS), and for investing in zero-emission infrastructure. It further asserts that global IMO measures must not undermine more ambitious regional regulations, such as the EU's plan to include shipping in the EU ETS.

The document argues that traditional corporate climate leadership, focused on "net zero" and offsets, is insufficient. It proposes a "drawdown-aligned" framework where employees use their internal influence to transform business models, supply chains, and financial investments. Key recommendations include adopting "Emissions 360" accounting, divesting from fossil fuels, aligning political lobbying with the Paris Agreement, and prioritizing long-term planetary health over quarterly profits.

The REDD+ programme aims to curb carbon emissions by providing financial incentives to developing countries for protecting forestry resources. While small-scale projects in Kenya and Cambodia have successfully preserved biodiversity and created jobs, large-scale implementation has faced significant failures. In Indonesia, the programme has been undermined by the misclassification of palm oil plantations as revegetation projects, alleged double counting of credits, and the displacement of indigenous communities. Despite these issues, the document notes that REDD+ has improved forestry monitoring and kept rainforests on the global policy agenda.

Friends of the Earth International proposes a revised Target 8 for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. The briefing argues that the target should focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and deforestation, ensuring mitigation measures do not harm biodiversity, and prioritizing ecosystem-based approaches. It specifically calls for the removal of a quantitative carbon sequestration goal of 10 GtCO2-e per year, arguing that carbon accounting is an imprecise metric for biodiversity and risks promoting monoculture plantations or the commodification of nature.

The briefing recommends that Target 8 focus on reducing biodiversity threats from climate change and ensuring mitigation efforts do not harm ecosystems. It specifically argues for the removal of a 10 Gt CO2-e annual mitigation target, asserting that carbon is an inappropriate metric for biodiversity and could incentivize the destruction of species-rich ecosystems in favor of monoculture plantations or BECCS projects.

The guidance outlines a target-setting framework for the aviation sector based on the Science Based Targets initiative's (SBTi) Sectoral Decarbonization Approach (SDA). It defines carbon intensity pathways derived from the IEA's Sustainable Development Scenario, requiring the sector to reduce average carbon intensity by approximately 35-40% between 2019 and 2035, and 65% by 2050. The framework covers Well-to-Wake (WTW) emissions, excluding non-CO2 factors due to scientific uncertainty. It provides specific instructions for aircraft operators to converge toward sector intensity levels and for aviation service users to address Scope 3 emissions, including a linear annual reduction rate of 0.4% for business air travel. The document also specifies criteria for the use of Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) and explicitly excludes out-of-value-chain carbon offsets from meeting science-based reduction targets.

Friends of the Earth International criticizes the draft Global Biodiversity Framework for adopting a utilitarian approach to nature, failing to regulate industrial drivers of biodiversity loss, and marginalizing indigenous peoples and Global South nations in virtual negotiations.

ClientEarth argues against the use of materiality assessments for climate metrics, advocates for mandatory Scope 3 emissions disclosure, and calls for transition plans to include science-based targets aligned with national commitments and a 1.5°C pathway.

Carbon Market Watch asserts that Article 6 of the Paris Agreement must move beyond zero-sum offsetting to achieve an overall mitigation in global emissions (OMGE). The author critiques two proposed options—relying on market forces and using conservative baselines—as insufficient. Instead, the document advocates for the automatic partial cancellation of credits, arguing that this mechanism ensures net atmospheric benefits and can increase carbon market prices and project owner profits.