Search Climate Insights Directory

A coalition of 121 civil society organisations calls for a robust Paris Treaty featuring 5-year commitment periods, a 2050 decarbonisation goal, and the exclusion of international carbon offsets. The letter advocates for a human rights-based approach, the integration of Sustainable Development Goals, and the recognition of Loss & Damage to ensure a just transition and environmental integrity.

The document contrasts industrial agribusiness with agroecology, asserting that the former is a primary driver of climate change and social inequality. It dismisses 'climate-smart agriculture' as a marketing tool for corporations to maintain power structures without addressing the root causes of the climate crisis. Instead, it advocates for a transition to agroecology, which supports small-scale producers, protects biodiversity, and enhances climate resilience. The text highlights the role of women and traditional knowledge in this transition and calls for public policies that shift resources away from industrial meat and crop production toward food sovereignty.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) requires fundamental reform to remain viable after 2020, specifically to move beyond 'pure offsetting' and ensure human rights protections. The organization recommends establishing a formal grievance mechanism, strengthening civil society participation, and introducing stricter additionality testing to exclude high-emission technologies like coal. It also calls for the removal of conflicts of interest within the CDM Executive Board and the introduction of liability rules for Designated Operational Entities (DOEs) to prevent the issuance of non-additional credits.

The policy brief defines 'hot air' as carbon credits that do not represent real emission reductions, which can increase overall global emissions if used to meet mitigation pledges. It identifies four primary sources of hot air: surplus allowances from emission trading systems, double-counted reductions, non-additional credits from offsetting projects, and non-permanent land-use offsets. To protect the environmental integrity of the Paris agreement, the author recommends regulating carbon market use to exclude surplus pre-2020 units, establishing a robust international accounting and MRV system, shifting from offset credits to direct financial support for developing countries, and banning non-permanent land-use offsets.

The report evaluates the effectiveness of public and private financial incentives for reducing forest emissions between 2005 and 2015. It finds that while over US$3 billion in public funds were committed to performance-based REDD+ payments by 2014, actual disbursements lagged at just over US$1 billion. The private forest carbon market experienced rapid growth until 2011 but subsequently declined, with the market value falling to approximately US$150 million by 2013. The document highlights that the voluntary carbon market alone is insufficient to scale up demand and emphasizes the need for integration into emissions trading systems.

A coalition of 98 global entities argues that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) fails to comply with international human rights obligations, specifically those recognized in the 2010 Cancun Agreements. The letter calls for the establishment of an independent accountability mechanism, the adoption of international sustainable development safeguards, and the implementation of improved stakeholder consultation processes to prevent environmental and social harms.

Carbon Market Watch recommends that the ICAO GMBM exclude high-risk offset projects, including fossil fuel power plants, nuclear facilities, large-scale hydropower, and certain industrial gas destruction projects. The brief highlights that these project types often lack additionality, cause severe social and environmental harm, or suffer from non-permanence. It cites existing exclusions in the EU ETS and other jurisdictions as precedents for maintaining high quality standards in aviation's climate response.

Carbon Market Watch responds to the EU consultation on the 2030 Effort Sharing Decision (ESD), opposing the use of EU ETS and LULUCF offsets to meet non-ETS targets. The organization argues that such flexibilities risk reducing the EU's 2030 climate ambition and delaying necessary mitigation. Instead, it proposes enhancing transparency in annual emission allocation (AEA) transfers, introducing a central auctioning system for AEAs to support lower-income Member States, and implementing a project-based intra-EU offset mechanism for transformative projects. The response emphasizes the importance of early action and calls for a comprehensive package of EU-wide policies in transport, buildings, agriculture, and waste to ensure the 2030 targets are met without compromising environmental integrity.

Carbon Market Watch argues that carbon markets should not substitute for domestic emission reductions and warns that oversupply in previous systems, such as the EU ETS and Kyoto Protocol's International Emissions Trading, has undermined their effectiveness. The organization emphasizes that the remaining carbon budget to stay below 2ºC is limited, necessitating a focus on zero/low carbon infrastructure over offsetting. It recommends that any new framework for international unit transfers must include robust eligibility rules, environmental integrity standards, and accounting rules to prevent double claiming.

The report assesses the global climate finance landscape, highlighting the critical role of public finance in catalyzing private investment. It examines various financial tools—including green bonds, carbon pricing, and risk mitigation instruments—and analyzes the performance of multilateral development banks and bilateral agencies. The document emphasizes that while global flows have increased, significant gaps remain in tracking private finance and achieving the USD 100 billion goal due to low carbon prices and a lack of stable enabling environments in developing nations.

The document provides a comprehensive introduction to Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), distinguishing them from carbon offsetting mechanisms like the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). It details the NAMA lifecycle—from concept to implementation—and examines the financial landscape, including the role of the NAMA Facility and the Green Climate Fund. The guide highlights the current state of NAMA deployment, noting that while many are in the design phase, few have reached implementation. It emphasizes the critical role of civil society in ensuring sustainable development and accountability through stakeholder engagement and Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) processes.

Carbon Market Watch proposes a comprehensive overhaul of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to ensure it delivers net atmospheric benefits rather than acting as a zero-sum offsetting tool. Key recommendations include tightening additionality testing through 'negative lists' for ineligible technologies, shortening crediting periods, and integrating national E+ and E- policies into baseline assessments. The document also advocates for strengthened civil society participation via new communication channels and a formal grievance mechanism. Furthermore, it calls for increased transparency from Designated National Authorities regarding sustainable development, stricter eligibility and conflict-of-interest rules for the CDM Executive Board, and a shift in the payment structure for Designated Operational Entities to ensure auditor independence.

Carbon Market Watch argues that international carbon markets must be supplementary to domestic action and governed by strict eligibility, accounting, and integrity rules to avoid the failures of previous mechanisms like the CDM and EU ETS. The organization recommends excluding REDD-plus and agriculture from carbon markets, implementing a 'negative list' of ineligible project types, and establishing a UN-led standard-setting body to prevent double-counting and ensure net atmospheric benefits.

The document analyzes the EU's Effort Sharing Decision (ESD), which sets emission targets for non-ETS sectors (transport, buildings, agriculture, and waste). It argues that the 2013-2020 period was characterized by weak targets and overgenerous flexibilities, leading to projected overachievement without new mitigation actions. For the 2021-2030 period, the EU aims for a 30% reduction compared to 2005. The brief warns that certain proposed flexibilities—specifically the use of EU ETS allowances and forestry offsets—could increase overall EU emissions by up to 28% by 2030. It recommends focusing on early action, implementing EU-wide mitigation policies, introducing auctioning based on the polluter-pays principle, and restricting borrowing to avoid delaying climate action.

A letter from MEPs to the CDM Board regarding the Santa Rita hydroelectric plant project in Guatemala, citing severe human rights abuses and a lack of local stakeholder consultation.

The policy brief examines the potential for linking the EU ETS with other carbon markets, specifically focusing on ongoing negotiations with Switzerland. It argues that while linking can increase cost-efficiency, it risks reducing overall emissions abatement, lowering domestic investment, and undermining the EU's target of at least 40% domestic emissions reductions by 2030. The author highlights a lack of transparency and democratic oversight in current linking procedures and recommends that any future linking be accompanied by increased EU emission targets and strict criteria regarding target stringency, the use of offsets, and price/supply controls.

The report examines the feasibility of linking the EU ETS with various global carbon markets, highlighting that success depends on harmonizing design features such as target stringency, offset rules, and price controls. It analyzes the successful California-Quebec linkage and the failed EU-Australia attempt, while evaluating the compatibility of the EU ETS with markets in Switzerland, China, South Korea, New Zealand, Kazakhstan, and the US RGGI. The author recommends that the EU ETS adopt safeguards used elsewhere, such as auction floor prices and banking limits, to address oversupply and price volatility.

The letter argues that aviation is the fastest growing transport mode and that ICAO's proposed offset mechanisms are inadequate. It calls for the EU to establish a common position, phase out tax-free fuel and VAT status, and push for legally binding emissions reduction carbon budgets for 2030 and 2050 to keep global warming below 2°C.

The document examines carbon pricing mechanisms, specifically carbon taxes and cap-and-trade programs, as a core strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. It details design features such as scope, point of regulation, and cost-containment mechanisms, while analyzing various ways to utilize generated revenues—including tax cuts, deficit reduction, and dividends—to offset economic impacts and increase political viability. The authors argue that a well-designed carbon price can provide a 'double dividend' of environmental benefit and economic efficiency.

The publication examines 24 REDD projects or programmes, concluding that their structural characteristics often harm forest communities and fail to reduce overall global emissions because they function as offsets.