Search Climate Insights Directory

The Climate Action Network (CAN) argues that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) have failed to deliver real emissions reductions, potentially contributing to an increase of 1 billion tons of global emissions. The statement demands fundamental reforms to additionality requirements, the mandate of net atmospheric benefits, and improved governance, while specifically calling for a halt to the issuance of JI offsets during the interim period.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is in a precarious state due to a severe supply-demand imbalance, with Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs) prices dropping over 90% in 18 months to approximately Euro 0.4. The organization asserts that at these price levels, implementing new additional projects is impossible. To ensure a viable future for the CDM, Carbon Market Watch recommends fundamental reforms focusing on additionality requirements, shorter crediting periods, the protection of human rights, sustainable development contributions, increased civil society participation, the establishment of a grievance mechanism, and improvements to the CDM Executive Board's conduct.

The policy brief warns that the EU's 2030 Climate Framework must account for the poor performance of existing international carbon markets, such as the CDM and JI, to avoid undermining climate targets through low-quality offsets and price instability.

The document examines how international offset mechanisms, which typically provide no net atmospheric benefit, could be designed to deliver a net decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. It identifies the need for certain additionality, surplus reductions, the avoidance of double counting, and the exclusion of surplus reductions from host country pledges to achieve a net atmospheric benefit.

The document examines how carbon pricing can lead to 'carbon leakage' and competitive disadvantages for domestic industries. It categorizes policy responses into domestic measures (subsidies, cost containment, and flexibility) and international measures (border adjustments and policy extension). Using the EU ETS as a primary case study, it highlights the risks of free allowance allocation, such as windfall profits and political rent-seeking, while noting that empirical evidence often suggests competitiveness concerns are overstated. It concludes that while border adjustments are theoretically effective, they pose significant risks of trade disputes and diplomatic tensions.

The report documents systemic failures in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) across seven projects in five countries. It highlights consistent patterns of inadequate stakeholder consultation, violations of indigenous rights, and environmental degradation. Specific examples include coal power plants in India causing pollution and displacement, hydroelectric projects in Panama, Honduras, and Guatemala ignoring indigenous consent and destroying ecosystems, and a waste incinerator in China causing local pollution. The document argues that CDM safeguards are insufficient to protect local populations and ensure genuine sustainable development.

Carbon Market Watch argues that international carbon offsets have failed to deliver promised climate benefits and have undermined the EU's domestic abatement efforts. The brief recommends a legally binding EU domestic GHG reduction target of at least 55% below 1990 levels for 2030, the total elimination of international offsets for meeting mitigation obligations post-2020, and the implementation of safeguards when linking the EU ETS to other trading schemes. It further suggests that climate finance should shift away from carbon markets toward regulation, standards, and incentive programs, such as performance-based financing for Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs).

Carbon Market Watch asserts that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) undermines climate goals by allowing new coal power plants to earn emissions credits for efficiency improvements. The organization argues that these projects are not 'additional' because efficiency is driven by fuel cost minimization, not CDM support, leading to a net increase in global greenhouse gas emissions. The paper highlights the severe human and ecological costs of coal, citing high mortality rates in India and China, and calls for the UNFCCC to follow the lead of the Norwegian and British governments by ending CDM support for coal and other large-scale power projects.

A group of international organisations is calling on EDF Trading to clarify its relationship with CDM project 2716 ("Grid connected energy efficient power generation") in India. While the company issued a correction in Enerpresse stating it is no longer contractually associated with the supercritical coal plant project and has never purchased its credits, the signatories note that this information is missing from the company's website. The letter highlights concerns over the project's compliance with national legislation and sustainable development criteria, as well as impacts on local communities, and asks for details on when and how EDF Trading ended its involvement.

A group of international organisations has written to EDF Trading to seek clarification and public disclosure regarding the company's involvement in CDM project 2716, a supercritical coal power plant in Mundra, India. The letter references a statement in Enerpresse claiming EDF Trading is no longer contractually associated with the project, while noting that 25 Indian NGOs have called for the project's approval to be withdrawn due to non-compliance with national legislation and sustainable development criteria.

Carbon Market Watch argues that a cap-and-trade scheme with a stringent cap and limited offsets is the only viable market-based measure for reducing aviation emissions, warning that 100% offsetting would delay in-sector reductions and potentially increase climate impacts if offsets are of low quality.

The report examines the legislative landscape for harvesting cattails and similar ecological biomass in Manitoba, concluding that such activities are not currently explicitly covered by federal or provincial legislation. It proposes two management frameworks: a private benefit scenario modeled on resource extraction like wild rice harvesting, and a publicly funded land management assistance scenario using contracts or incentives.

A group of European NGOs expresses dismay at the lack of progress within ICAO regarding a global market-based measure (MBM) for aviation emissions. They call on the EU to demand an in-principle decision at the 38th Assembly to implement a global MBM by 2016 at the latest, warning that deferring the issue for another three years would be an "abrogation of ICAO responsibility." The NGOs advocate for a transparent process to define technical aspects and emission reduction unit quality, while supporting specific exemptions for developing countries and a geographical scope based on departing flights.

The report argues that the EU ETS has failed to drive domestic emissions reductions due to a cap set against inflated projections and a flood of low-quality offsets. It finds that the system is now cancelling out approximately 700 million tonnes of abatement from other EU policies. The author recommends the permanent removal of 1.7 billion allowances from Phase 3 auctions to restore environmental integrity and increase Europe's 2020 climate target to 30% below 1990 levels.

The authors analyzed sample offset projects across five programs—the Clean Development Mechanism, Climate Action Reserve, Chicago Climate Exchange, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and the U.S. EPA’s former Climate Leaders programme—focusing on landfill methane, manure management, and afforestation/reforestation. They found that variations in accounting boundaries, baseline methods, measurement rules, emission factors, and discounts result in significant differences in credited offsets, sometimes exceeding 50%. The paper argues for the harmonization of these protocols to improve offset quality and facilitate the linking of trading systems.

The policy brief examines the climate impact of aviation, which contributes between 5% and 14% of global climate emissions. It critiques the reliance on offsetting, arguing that only a cap-and-trade system with a strict cap can deliver real in-sector reductions. The document analyzes ICAO's proposed measures, including a 'basket of measures' and various market-based options, while warning that low-quality offsets from mechanisms like the CDM and JI undermine environmental integrity. It also details the EU's attempt to include international flights in the EU-ETS and the subsequent 'stop the clock' derogation to allow ICAO to find a global solution.

The document examines the environmental and social challenges of international aviation, highlighting that the sector may be responsible for up to 14% of man-made climate change. It criticizes the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) for a lack of binding measures and analyzes the European Union's attempts to unilaterally regulate aviation emissions via the EU-ETS. The brief argues that offsetting is not a long-term solution and warns against the use of low-quality credits from mechanisms like Joint Implementation (JI) or oversupplied cap-and-trade systems. It recommends that any global aviation scheme must prioritize in-sector reductions and generate finance for climate action in developing countries.

A group of international environmental and science organizations called on IATA to support a global market-based measure (MBM) to reduce aviation emissions. The letter argues that technical and operational measures alone are insufficient to meet climate targets and that a fragmented approach of domestic policies will not achieve science-based goals. The signatories demand that any MBM include science-compatible targets, strict compliance, and limited access to offsets.

The document critiques the International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) progress toward a market-based measure (MBM) for international aviation emissions. It argues that the industry's preference for 100% offsetting fails to incentivize actual emission reductions within the sector and warns that low-quality offsets could exacerbate climate impacts. The author advocates for a cap-and-trade scheme with a stringent cap and strict quality restrictions on eligible offset credits to ensure environmental integrity.

China is implementing seven regional pilot emissions trading systems (ETS) in Beijing, Chongqing, Shanghai, Tianjin, Guangdong, Hubei, and Shenzhen to test the framework for a national ETS after 2016. These pilots could regulate between 0.8 and 1 billion tonnes of CO2 and may incorporate price control mechanisms to ensure market stability. Additionally, the pilots are expected to allow the use of Chinese Certified Emissions Reductions (CCERs), a government-administered offset program based on the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), with potential demand reaching 100 million offsets per year by 2015.