Search Climate Insights Directory

Carbon Market Watch critiques the TSVCM's objective of scaling the voluntary carbon market (VCM), arguing that growth should not be the primary goal and that financial speculation through secondary markets and futures contracts does not benefit the climate. The organization emphasizes the need for a truly independent governance body, free from industry associations and conflicts of interest, and calls for more rigorous Core Carbon Principles (CCPs). Key recommendations include excluding ex-ante and retroactive crediting, requiring a minimum permanence timeframe of at least 100 years, and ensuring that credits used for offsetting include corresponding adjustments to national reporting to avoid double claiming.

Carbon Market Watch argues against the transition of CDM credits to the Paris Agreement era, warning that up to 4 billion "hot air" credits could flood the market. The organization advocates for a clean break from the Kyoto Protocol, requiring all CDM projects to be reassessed against strict quality criteria. To enable climate ambition under Article 6, the submission proposes the use of conservative baselines, an automatic partial cancellation rate of credits to ensure overall global emission reductions, and the restriction of carbon markets to the disbursement of results-based climate finance rather than zero-sum offsetting.

The report analyzes the Mataven and Kaliawiri REDD+ projects in Colombia, finding they generated approximately 21 million more carbon credits than justified by official government reference values. These 'hot air' credits were used by companies, primarily Primax Colombia SAS, to avoid paying the national carbon tax, leading to an estimated US$62 million in potential forgone tax revenues. The document attributes this to a system failure involving conflicts of interest for verification bodies, lack of stringency from standards like Verra (VCS) and ProClima, and insufficient enforcement by the Colombian Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development.

A policy brief by Carbon Market Watch analyzing how the Matavén and Kaliawiri REDD+ projects in Colombia used artificially high baselines to generate millions of excess carbon credits. These credits were used by companies, primarily Primax Colombia SAS, to avoid paying the national carbon tax, leading to an estimated $33 million loss in state revenue from these two projects alone. The report highlights systemic failures involving project promoters, verification bodies, and the Colombian Ministry of Environment.

The report characterizes "net zero" agendas as a "Great Cheat," asserting that they allow major polluters to continue emissions while relying on unproven technologies and flawed offsetting schemes. It details how these entities use lobbying, financial influence over academia, and corporate capture of international forums like the UNFCCC to displace real emission reductions. The document highlights specific failures in the plans of companies such as Shell, Total SA, and JBS, and calls for a transition to "Real Zero" by 2030 through systemic change and climate justice.

The document analyzes how 'Big Polluters' across various sectors use 'net zero' targets as a form of greenwashing to delay real emission reductions. It identifies critical conceptual flaws in these plans, such as reliance on unproven geoengineering and carbon offsets, and details how these corporations influence political and academic institutions to validate their agendas. Case studies on companies like Shell, Total SA, and JBS illustrate the gap between public commitments and actual business operations, while the report calls for a transition to 'Real Zero' by 2030.

The report claims that "net zero" agendas are a form of greenwashing used by "Big Polluters" to avoid reducing emissions. It identifies these entities as industries responsible for the majority of historical emissions, including fossil fuels, agribusiness, and aviation. The document details how these actors use risky technologies like BECCS and carbon offsets as "dangerous distractions" and employ lobbying, financial contributions, and academic partnerships to shape climate policy in their favor. Case studies on JBS, Shell, and Total SA are used to illustrate how these plans often mask continued pollution and lead to land grabbing in the Global South.

The report contends that "net zero" pledges from "Big Polluters"—including fossil fuel, agribusiness, and tech giants—are deceptive strategies to avoid responsibility for climate change. It identifies "dangerous distractions" such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), and carbon offsets, arguing these schemes often lead to human rights abuses and "carbon colonialism." The document details how these corporations influence policy through lobbying, financial contributions to politicians, and the funding of academic research at institutions like Stanford and MIT to validate "net zero" narratives. Case studies of Shell, Total SA, and JBS are used to illustrate how these plans often mask continued production of high-emissions products.

The report analyzes how varying rates of OMGE and SOP, alongside CDM transition rules, affect global GHG abatement and adaptation funding. It finds that higher OMGE rates increase net global abatement and credit prices, while higher SOP rates increase revenues for the Adaptation Fund without affecting net global abatement. The transition of CDM units and activities is found to potentially increase global emissions unless limited to vulnerable projects.

The statement asserts that while protecting and restoring ecosystems is essential to meeting the 1.5-degree Celsius goal of the Paris Agreement, natural climate solutions must not be used as a substitute for rapid decarbonization. It calls for strict guardrails on offsets and encourages investors to demand transparency regarding corporate transition plans and the specifics of carbon credit sourcing.

The report identifies five key technical solutions for net-zero—energy efficiency, electrification, low-carbon fuels, heavy industry decarbonization, and carbon removal—and five strategic recommendations for Canada, including the creation of industry consortia, Indigenous leadership, a whole-of-government approach, a just transition for workers, and a transparent framework for carbon offsets.

The document outlines how fossil fuel companies use misleading advertising to appear more sustainable than they are. It specifically critiques claims regarding the sustainability of natural gas, the viability of carbon capture and storage (CCS), the effectiveness of carbon offsets and nature-based solutions, and the carbon neutrality of wood biomass energy.

A coalition of NGOs calls on Total shareholders to reject the company's climate strategy and leadership, citing insufficient emission reduction targets, planned increases in hydrocarbon production, and a lack of transparency regarding Scope 3 emissions.

Carbon Market Watch argues against the use of 'net' targets in the EU Climate Law, asserting that carbon removals from forests cannot replace the need for gross emission reductions. The organization advocates for a 65% reduction in emissions by 2030 and the exclusion of carbon removals from the EU carbon market to prevent big emitters from using offsets to avoid cutting pollution.

The briefing examines the risks and requirements for corporate financing of Nature Based Solutions (NBS) in the context of net-zero commitments. It proposes a shift from traditional offsetting—where companies might choose to pay for reductions elsewhere rather than reducing their own emissions—to a 'counterbalancing' approach. Under this model, companies must first comply with the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) to ensure they are on a 1.5°C trajectory across Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions before using NBS credits. On the supply side, the document advocates for the 'jurisdictional approach' over project-based credits to better manage risks like leakage, permanence, and additionality, highlighting the ART/TREES standard as a robust framework for ensuring environmental and social integrity.

The document argues that a share of proceeds for adaptation should be levied on all Article 6.2 and 6.4 transactions as a monetary contribution with a floor value to ensure stable funding. It further asserts that all Internationally Traded Mitigation Outcomes (ITMOs) and Article 6.4 emission reductions (A6.4ERs), including those from sectors or gases outside a host Party's NDC, must be subject to corresponding adjustments to prevent double counting and maintain environmental integrity.

The report finds that the 60 largest global banks provided $3.8 trillion in fossil fuel financing from 2016 to 2020. Despite a 9% drop in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, financing levels remained higher than in 2016. JPMorgan Chase is identified as the world's worst fossil fuel banker, with $317 billion provided over the five-year period. The analysis highlights a significant gap between banks' 'net zero by 2050' pledges and their continued funding of fossil fuel expansion, particularly in sectors like LNG, offshore oil and gas, and coal. The report also details the human rights and environmental impacts of specific projects, such as the East African Crude Oil Pipeline and the Line 3 pipeline, and argues that current bank policies are insufficient to align with the 1.5C goal of the Paris Agreement.

The letter urges EU officials to adopt gross greenhouse gas reduction targets and separate carbon removal targets to ensure that forest restoration does not serve as a 'smoke screen' for climate inaction in the energy, transport, and industrial sectors. It argues that fossil carbon and atmospheric carbon pools are distinct and that forest sinks are too impermanent and uncertain to justify market-based offsets.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Enbridge for securing a $1.0 billion "Sustainability Linked" credit facility from five major banks, asserting that the company's ESG goals are insufficient and serve to mask the continued expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure. The author contends that Enbridge's net-zero and GHG intensity targets only cover scope 1 and 2 emissions, representing less than 2% of the lifecycle emission intensity of oil sands. Furthermore, the document highlights that the Line 3 pipeline project in Minnesota, supported by such funding, increases GHG emissions and violates the treaty rights of the Anishinaabeg.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Enbridge for securing a $1 billion sustainability-linked credit facility while continuing to invest heavily in fossil fuels and the Line 3 pipeline. The organization contends that Enbridge's ESG goals are insufficient as they only cover scope 1 and 2 emissions, ignoring the vast majority of the carbon footprint associated with oil sands transport. The document highlights that the Line 3 project in Minnesota violates indigenous rights and significantly increases greenhouse gas emissions, calling for stricter financial regulations to prevent such greenwashing.