Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that temporary CRCF units from carbon farming are currently of low quality due to insufficient management of non-permanence and additionality risks, making them unsuitable for offsetting emissions. It assesses proposed EU agri-food policies—including an Agricultural Emissions Trading System (AgETS) and Mandatory Climate Standards (MCS)—concluding that allowing these units as offsets would undermine environmental integrity. The authors recommend shifting toward activity-based payments, either through a reformed Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) or other public funding mechanisms, to promote carbon farming without the integrity risks associated with result-based crediting.

Carbon Market Watch warns that carbon markets are being promoted as a 'cure-all' for the climate crisis, which risks camouflaging climate inaction. The organization asserts that these markets are riddled with systemic flaws, often violate human rights, and cannot replace the scale of climate finance required for developing countries. It calls for COP30 to prioritize rapid, substantial emissions cuts over the use of carbon credits for offsetting.

The document argues for a shift from the 'compensation' model of carbon offsetting to a 'contribution' model known as beyond value chain mitigation (BVCM). It examines several climate impact funds—including 1% for the Planet, Frontier, and Milkywire—finding that while they generally support high-impact climate action and avoid misleading neutrality claims, there is a systemic need for clearer BVCM metrics and more explicit guidance on corporate claims to prevent greenwashing.

The document challenges the narrative that carbon credits drive corporate climate ambition, asserting that existing studies showing a correlation between credit use and decarbonisation suffer from methodological flaws, including sample bias and confounding factors. It highlights risks such as the 'investment effect' and 'target effect,' where credits compete with or substitute for internal abatement. The brief recommends that companies, regulators, and standard setters treat carbon credits only as complementary contributions (Beyond Value Chain Mitigation) and maintain a strict firewall between credit use and internal emission reduction targets.

The report contends that using carbon credits to close coal plants replicates past failures of offsetting mechanisms, which often generate fictitious credits and allow polluters to continue operating. It argues that the primary goal of these markets is the exchange of credits rather than actual emission reductions. Instead of using offsets to buy out investors, the document recommends ending financial services for new coal projects, removing barriers to sustainable energy deployment, avoiding full public indemnification of stranded assets, and implementing sector-wide coordinated coal exits.

The author contends that the EU's CRCF framework relies on unscientific methodologies and lacks social safeguards, potentially fueling 'green-grabbing' and land inequality. The document further criticizes the proposed next phase of the CAP for lacking a ringfenced budget for environmental action and granting member states too much autonomy, which may lead to a 'race to the bottom' regarding environmental safeguards. It concludes that carbon and nature credits are unsuitable tools for ensuring a fair standard of living for farmers.

The statement critiques the 'like-for-like' principle in climate policy, which suggests matching the atmospheric lifetime or carbon cycle of emissions with corresponding removal types. The author contends that this logic allows industries to use cheap, temporary, and vulnerable removals to avoid deep emission cuts. It specifically highlights the danger of offsetting methane emissions with temporary storage, noting that methane has a permanent climate impact as it breaks down into CO2. The document also discusses the EU Green Claims Directive, noting a divide between the European Parliament's preference for permanent removals for fossil emissions and the more permissive stance of the European Commission and Council. The author concludes that all residual emissions should be balanced only by high-quality removals that lock away CO2 for centuries or millennia.

Carbon Neobank is a digital financial vehicle designed to bridge the USD 331 billion SME finance gap in Africa by integrating international carbon markets into business banking. Headquartered in Kenya, it offers three primary products: receivables loans, unsecured working capital loans, and carbon-backed term loans, targeting a USD 1 billion total addressable market. The vehicle utilizes a digital-first model, leveraging a partnership with Ecobank for geographic reach across 33 countries and employing digital Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (dMRV) to monetize emission reductions. A USD 10.8 million pilot is planned to demonstrate the model's ability to mobilize private capital and deliver climate outcomes, including an estimated 6.097 million tCO2e in emission reductions over 10 years. The bank specifically targets the agricultural sector and women-led businesses to promote an inclusive green transition.

The report examines 'coal transition credits' as a financial tool for early coal plant closure in Southeast Asia. It finds significant expert skepticism, with only 2 out of 10 experts viewing them as effective. Major risks identified include carbon leakage, baseline inflation, and 'perverse incentives' that may reward polluters. The document concludes that CTCs are not a reliable exit strategy and emphasizes the need for systemic public policy and funding over market-based offsets.

The report examines 'coal transition credits' (CTCs) as a mechanism to accelerate the phase-out of coal-fired power plants in Southeast Asia. While proponents suggest CTCs can unlock private finance for early retirement and just transition measures, a survey of 10 experts reveals widespread skepticism. Key concerns include the risk of carbon leakage, where retired capacity is replaced by other fossil fuels, and the difficulty of establishing conservative baselines to prove additionality. Experts warn that CTCs could create perverse incentives, rewarding polluters and encouraging the delay of retirements to maximize credit issuance. Furthermore, the report highlights structural barriers in Southeast Asia, such as young coal plant fleets and rigid power purchase agreements, and notes that current methodologies, including Verra's VM0052, may have loopholes regarding 'captive' coal plants. The findings suggest that without rigorous guardrails and a focus on public finance, CTCs risk being a tool for greenwashing rather than a driver of genuine climate impact.

The report examines 'coal transition credits' (CTC)—carbon credits generated by retiring coal plants early and replacing them with renewables—as a way to fund the energy transition in Southeast Asia. Based on a survey of 10 experts, the document finds deep skepticism regarding the instrument's effectiveness. Key concerns include 'carbon leakage' (where retired capacity is replaced by other fossil fuels), the subjectivity of baseline scenarios leading to over-issuance, and the risk of 'greenwashing' or rewarding polluters. Experts highlight that only 2 out of 10 view CTCs as effective, warning that without strict safeguards, these credits could undermine genuine decarbonization and fail to provide a 'just transition' for affected workers and communities.

The 2025 Forest Declaration Assessment reports that global forests remain in crisis, with 8.07 million hectares of deforestation in 2024, leaving the world 63% off track for 2030 goals. While some natural recovery and national reforms in countries like Brazil and Indonesia show promise, the report finds that corporate commitments are largely unimplemented and public finance for forests is dwarfed by environmentally harmful agricultural subsidies. It calls for a shift from voluntary pledges to mandatory regulations and inclusive governance that secures land rights for Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

The report critiques 'coal transition offsets' (CTOs), specifically those promoted by the Rockefeller Foundation's Coal-to-Clean-Credit Initiative (CCCI) and Singapore's Traction Coalition. It argues that CTOs inherit the systemic failures of the broader carbon offset market, including non-additionality and over-crediting. Through analysis of pilot projects in the Philippines, the document demonstrates how CTOs may not actually accelerate plant closures and can create perverse incentives for policymakers to avoid mandating coal phaseouts. The author recommends shifting focus from individual plant buyouts to systemic energy reforms, such as grid modernization and the renegotiation of power purchase agreements (PPAs) to reduce the financial burden of retiring coal assets.

The Net Zero Stocktake 2025 finds that while the number of net zero targets continues to rise across companies, cities, and regions, the integrity of these commitments remains low. As of September 2025, 1,935 entities have targets, including 137 national governments and 63% of the Forbes Global 2000. However, only a small fraction of companies, regions, and cities meet all minimum integrity requirements. The report also highlights a gap in planning, with nearly one-third of Forbes Global 2000 companies lacking a clear roadmap, and expresses concern over the lack of dedicated targets for nature-based carbon removals.

The report addresses the integrity problems inherent in carbon offsets, noting that no mechanism can entirely guarantee permanence or additionality. It proposes moving away from treating offsets as perfect and instead using an 'equivalence' concept to determine how many imperfect offsets equal one perfect offset based on carbon concentrations or warming potential. The author suggests that acknowledging these risks can prevent the abandonment of offsets that still provide value, such as delaying tipping points, provided that claims (like net-zero) are adjusted to reflect uncertainty and avoided damages.

Researchers from CPI/PUC-RIO developed a dynamic economic model to evaluate the additionality of REDD projects in the Brazilian Amazon, moving beyond traditional statistical baselines. The study finds that 77% of the carbon stock in these projects is additional, meaning it would have been emitted without the projects, avoiding 0.5 Gt of CO2 equivalent. However, additionality varies by region, with significantly lower rates in forested and isolated areas, such as Portel, Pará, where low agricultural productivity makes deforestation unlikely even without carbon credits. The report argues that while some non-additionality exists, the low price of REDD credits (US$ 5 to US$ 15 per ton) limits the financial impact of these discrepancies compared to other carbon pricing mechanisms.

The report introduces a dynamic economic model to determine the additionality of REDD projects in the Brazilian Amazon, finding that 77% of the carbon traded is additional. It highlights regional variations, noting higher additionality in agribusiness-consolidated areas and lower additionality in isolated regions like Portel, while suggesting that higher carbon prices would further increase additionality rates.

The report finds that while durable CDR (storage >1,000 years) is essential for neutralizing fossil emissions, corporate uptake is low and concentrated among a few companies, notably Microsoft. Many companies instead rely on non-durable CDR, which the authors argue is unsuitable for neutralizing long-cycle emissions. The report highlights risks of double counting between companies and governments and a systemic lack of transparency regarding the environmental and social impacts of CDR projects. It recommends that voluntary initiatives like SBTi require companies to set separate monetary and removal targets based on ability to pay, rather than merging them into net-zero goals.

The Net Zero Stocktake 2025 finds that while net zero target-setting continues to rise among companies and subnational governments, national-level coverage has dipped due to the US formally abandoning its target. Target integrity remains low, with only a small fraction of entities meeting minimum procedural and substantive requirements. The report also highlights a concerning corporate reliance on nature-based removals and offsets, which often lack transparency and durability.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) supports the Washington Department of Ecology's draft forest offset rule, which introduces more rigorous standards for carbon credit calculation and verification. Key proposed changes include recalculating baselines every 10 years, increasing the default market leakage rate from 20% to 40%, and using spatially explicit risk data for buffer pool contributions. While CATF praises these steps toward transparency and conservatism, it recommends further improvements, such as adopting empirical dynamic baselines, removing buffer pool contribution caps for fire and biotic risks, and moving away from real estate appraisals for avoided conversion projects to ensure credits represent actual CO2 reductions.