Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that carbon dioxide removal (CDR) should be treated as a public service, similar to sewage treatment, because most CDR technologies do not generate independent revenue. It identifies a massive implementation gap between projected removal volumes and current policies, noting that while nature-based solutions are cheaper, they lack the permanence of technological options like Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS) and Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). The authors recommend a mix of public subsidies for research, design, development and demonstration (RDD&D), carbon pricing, and the use of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement to create a credible investment environment. It also highlights the role of voluntary private sector commitments, though it warns of a 'wild west' situation in the voluntary carbon market due to inconsistent monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) standards.

A coalition of climate and accountability organisations argues that Shell's 2021 strategy update is insufficient to limit global warming to 1.5°C. They claim the company relies on intensity-based targets rather than absolute reductions, continues heavy investment in upstream oil and gas, and depends on unrealistic carbon capture and offset projections. The authors call on investors to support a resolution requiring Shell to set quantitative, Paris-aligned targets for Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions.

The document critiques carbon offsetting as a "cheap way out" that often lacks environmental integrity and instead promotes a "contribution model." Under this model, companies finance climate projects without claiming the resulting emission reductions as their own, allowing for more transparent reporting of both positive and negative climate impacts.

The document critiques the concept of 'net zero' and the expansion of carbon markets, distinguishing between 'real zero' (immediate emission cuts) and 'false zero' (reliance on offsets). It asserts that fossil fuel emissions cannot be physically offset by natural ecosystems and warns that the drive for 'nature-based solutions' leads to land grabbing and the financialization of nature. The report calls for a coordinated phase-out of fossil fuels and a transition to a just, community-led energy and food system.

The document critiques the concept of 'net zero' and the use of carbon offsetting, distinguishing between 'real zero' (actual emission elimination) and 'false zero' (reliance on offsets). It asserts that carbon markets and 'nature-based solutions' are used as distractions by the fossil fuel industry and financial sectors to maintain the status quo, which risks further land grabbing and the violation of Indigenous and local community rights. The report emphasizes that fossil carbon cannot be simply absorbed by the biosphere and calls for a coordinated phase-out of fossil fuels and a transition to a climate-just economy.

The document critiques the concept of 'net zero' and carbon offsetting, distinguishing between 'true zero' (rapidly eliminating fossil fuel emissions) and 'false zero' (relying on offsets). It asserts that fossil carbon cannot be absorbed by natural cycles and that the demand for offsets leads to the financialization of nature and the dispossession of indigenous and local communities.

The document critiques the concept of "net zero," distinguishing between "real zero" (immediate deep emission cuts) and "fake zero" (reliance on offsets). It asserts that carbon offsets do not reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations and that the land required to meet corporate offset demands would be ecologically and socially catastrophic. The report specifically highlights the role of the financial sector and fossil fuel majors in rehabilitating voluntary carbon markets to maintain business-as-usual operations.

The document examines the role of nature-based solutions (NBS) in corporate net-zero strategies, emphasizing that while NBS can provide critical finance for conservation and significant co-benefits for biodiversity, they must not substitute for direct fossil fuel abatement. It details 'demand-side' risks, such as the potential for offsets to dilute corporate ambition, and 'supply-side' risks, including leakage, permanence, and additionality. The authors advocate for a 'both/and' approach combining aggressive internal decarbonization with high-quality NBS credits, preferably shifting from project-based to jurisdictional-scale crediting to improve integrity.

The author contends that voluntary carbon offsetting is risky and unsustainable, often leading to double counting where both a company and a host country claim the same emission reductions. The document proposes a 'contribution claim' model, combined with internal carbon pricing, where companies fund climate action in other countries to support Paris Agreement goals without claiming carbon neutrality. If offsetting continues, the author insists on 'corresponding adjustments' to ensure reductions are not counted toward national targets, while warning that financing projects in countries with low ambition rewards 'climate laggards'.

The document critiques the concept of 'net zero deforestation,' arguing that it erroneously equates the protection of indigenous forests with the planting of new forests, which cannot replace the 'unrecoverable carbon' and ecosystem services of natural forests. It further asserts that agricultural certifications for soy, such as RTRS and Proterra, are insufficient because they represent only 1.5% to 3% of global production and often allow large-scale monocultures and pesticides. The author calls on banks, insurers, and investors to pressure soy traders like Cargill to stop purchasing soy from land converted after January 1, 2020.

Carbon Market Watch expresses significant concerns regarding the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets' blueprint, stating that it risks creating a speculative financial market that benefits the financial sector more than the climate. The organization argues that scaling the market without first addressing systemic integrity issues, such as the lack of transparency and the use of low-quality offsets, could lead to widespread greenwashing and a net increase in global greenhouse gas emissions. It specifically opposes the use of biological carbon sinks for offsets due to non-permanence and measurement uncertainties, and rejects the introduction of core carbon spot and futures contracts as a means of increasing opacity.

The report finds that while renewable energy investment is growing, continued funding for fossil fuel power plants and the presence of 'locked-in' emissions from existing assets keep the global power sector on a temperature trajectory exceeding 3.2°C. It highlights a significant gap between actual 2018 investment carbon intensities and the negative thresholds required by 2030 to achieve Paris alignment. The analysis identifies specific misalignments among major economies like China, India, and Japan, and among financial actors such as commercial banks and export credit agencies. The document recommends halting new carbon-intensive investments, accelerating the retirement of existing fossil fuel plants, and harmonizing climate risk reporting.

The policy brief contends that relying on carbon offsets to meet climate targets is risky and unsustainable due to issues with environmental integrity and the risk of 'double counting' under the Paris Agreement. It argues that offsets can displace domestic climate action and mask the scale of the climate crisis by offering a cheap alternative to deep sectoral transformation. To address these failures, the document proposes shifting from a 'compensation' model to a 'contribution' model, where companies fund host country climate efforts without claiming carbon neutrality. Additionally, it suggests 'practice-based credits' that reward the implementation of sustainable practices rather than quantified results, which is particularly useful for land-use projects where permanence is difficult to guarantee. The brief emphasizes that these alternatives better align with sustainable development goals and protect companies from reputational risks associated with fraudulent offsetting claims.

The report argues that while carbon markets were originally designed for zero-sum offsetting, they can be repurposed for results-based climate finance (RBCF) to quantify and verify mitigation impacts. It identifies a specific 'niche' for RBCF: supporting technologies that have passed the R&D stage but are not yet market-mature. The authors highlight several limitations, including a bias toward the cheapest mitigation options, high transaction costs for monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV), and a lack of effectiveness in least developed countries (LDCs) where emissions are low. To maximize impact, the report suggests shifting from rewarding to enabling through host-country policy commitments, reducing MRV stringency when credits are not used for offsetting, and complementing RBCF with upfront grants or loans.

The document outlines a research project led by Öko-Institut and the Stockholm Environment Institute focused on the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). It evaluates the environmental integrity of Emissions Unit Criteria (EUC), estimates the potential supply of offset credits, and examines mechanisms under the Paris Agreement to prevent double counting between CORSIA and nationally determined contributions (NDCs).

The author contends that Quebec's goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 is at risk because the current Plan does not specify the extent of local emission reductions or limit the use of carbon sequestration. Relying on natural processes is deemed less reliable due to risks like forest fires, while technological solutions remain theoretical. The document suggests that a lack of structural changes could lead to price spikes in carbon markets and recommends a mix of incentives and binding measures, such as eco-fiscality and shifting investment from road expansion to public transit.

The 2020 assessment of NYDF Goal 9 reveals that while nearly USD 4.7 billion in results-based finance has been committed since 2010, only 40 percent has been disbursed. The report highlights a significant gap in funding for the implementation phase of REDD+ activities and notes that carbon markets have channeled USD 2.5 billion to forests over 20 years. While private sector demand for forest carbon offsets is rising among airlines and petroleum companies, current carbon prices remain too low to meet Paris Agreement objectives. Additionally, the report details various domestic compliance schemes in countries like Australia, Canada, and China that allow for forest carbon credits.

The report identifies a rapid increase in net-zero pledges globally, noting that as of October 2020, these targets cover 826 cities, 103 regions, and 1,565 companies. It argues that the actual ambition of these pledges is often obscured by ambiguous implementation approaches—specifically regarding emission reductions, offsetting, and carbon dioxide removal—and advocates for greater transparency to ensure targets lead to deep decarbonisation.

ClientEarth proposes a principles-based framework to standardize 'Paris-alignment' and 'net-zero' strategies for the private sector. The framework consists of three core principles—Reasonable, Transparent, and Accountable—supported by eleven 'Red lines' that act as non-negotiable requirements. These include setting net-zero targets for Scopes 1-3 by 2050 at the latest, prioritizing direct value chain reductions over offsets, and linking executive remuneration to target achievement. The paper emphasizes that financial institutions must specifically disclose how they influence Scope 3 emissions through investment and underwriting decisions to ensure real-world GHG reductions.

The document critiques 'net zero' targets as a form of 'greenwashing' that allows continued greenhouse gas emissions by relying on unproven future technologies and carbon offsets. It argues that these targets often shift the burden of carbon sequestration to the Global South, facilitating 'carbon colonialism'. The authors call for 'Real Zero' targets, which require immediate, absolute reductions in emissions, particularly from developed nations, and the implementation of systemic solutions in energy, agriculture, and transport.