Search Climate Insights Directory

Carbon Market Watch and partner organizations challenge the registration of the Bujagali Hydropower Project under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). They argue the project is non-additional because it was already completed and deemed the 'least-cost' power option regardless of carbon credit income. The letter also highlights environmental damage to Lake Victoria and the displacement of approximately 6,800 people.

The document examines Vale's dual strategy of expanding global coal and mining operations while lobbying for lenient carbon offsetting regulations and implementing 'green' projects that the authors claim exacerbate the climate crisis. It highlights specific negative impacts in Mozambique and Brazil, and describes how Vale influences national and international climate policy to benefit its business interests.

The document examines how Vale leverages its relationship with the Brazilian government to lobby for lenient climate regulations and financial incentives for carbon offsets. It highlights the contradiction between Vale's corporate sustainability claims and its actual operations, specifically citing the Moatize coal project in Mozambique and the TKCSA steel plant in Brazil. The report characterizes these market-based mechanisms, including the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and REDD, as 'false solutions' that facilitate corporate profit while causing social displacement and environmental degradation.

The report investigates the governance of climate finance in the Global South, arguing that current mechanisms often prioritize mitigation over adaptation and corporate profit over local needs. Through case studies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, it highlights systemic issues including the 'greenwashing' of industrial activities, the marginalization of indigenous land rights, and a lack of transparency in fund disbursement. The authors advocate for a normative framework based on democratic governance, downward accountability to vulnerable communities, and the separation of public and private funding sources to ensure climate finance addresses actual developmental and environmental needs.

China is transitioning from top-down command-and-control energy policies to market-based instruments, aiming for a national carbon trading system by 2016. While the country has been a global leader in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), its domestic market remains in a research-and-development stage. Current efforts focus on seven regional pilots and potential sector-based schemes for power and buildings. Significant hurdles remain, including the lack of reliable baseline emission data, the absence of a mature free-market economy, and the need for a legal infrastructure to manage permit allocation and verification.

The report critiques the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership (KFCP), a pilot REDD project funded by the Australian government. It argues that the project fails to protect indigenous rights, ignores the root causes of deforestation, and risks creating 'leakage' where emissions are simply displaced. The document highlights conflicts over land tenure among the Dayak people and criticizes the use of market-based carbon offsets as a way for developed nations like Australia to avoid reducing their own fossil fuel emissions.

The report examines the role of the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) as a corporate lobby group that promotes carbon trading and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to serve the interests of energy and mining companies. It highlights the 'revolving door' between the UK government and IETA leadership, specifically regarding Henry Derwent. The document argues that IETA's influence at UN climate conferences—where it often maintains the largest NGO delegation—promotes low-cost market options that allow developed nations to avoid deep domestic emission cuts, thereby delaying effective climate action.

The report critiques the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership (KFCP), a bilateral agreement between Australia and Indonesia designed to pilot REDD carbon offsets. It argues that the project ignores indigenous land rights, fails to address the primary drivers of deforestation, and risks creating social conflict. The document further contends that market-based REDD mechanisms generally shift climate responsibility from rich to poor nations and are prone to 'leakage' and permanence issues.

The policy note argues that revisions to the ACM0013 methodology can only partially address the issues surrounding CDM coal power projects. It identifies three fundamental challenges: a low signal-to-noise ratio in efficiency data, the ineffectiveness of additionality assessments for multi-billion-dollar projects, and the contradiction of using climate finance to lock in long-lived, emissions-intensive infrastructure. The authors conclude that these combined factors likely defy easy resolution through methodology revisions alone.

The document analyzes the risks associated with hydropower projects under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), noting that hydropower represents 30% of all registered CDM carbon offset projects as of September 2011. It argues that without effective criteria for additionality and sustainability, the CDM risks issuing credits for 'business-as-usual' projects and shifting mitigation costs to poor communities in the South. The study specifically focuses on China and India, which together hold 78% of registered hydropower CDM projects, as well as Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and the EU's application of World Commission on Dams (WCD) guidelines for projects selling credits into the European Emissions Trading Scheme.

The report identifies a significant gap in the ability to measure the effectiveness of climate finance, noting that current tools are often project-based, incompatible, and lack real-time evaluation capabilities. It argues that effectiveness is enhanced when funding is aligned with national priorities, promotes transformative effects, and utilizes results-based approaches. The authors recommend the development of standardized 'climate effectiveness' metrics, robust ex ante and ex post abatement estimates, and increased transparency to avoid the risks of fragmentation and 'crowding-out' of private investment. The analysis draws on lessons from development aid (Paris-Accra principles), international financial institutions (IFIs), and market-based instruments like the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The CDM Executive Board's 64th meeting addressed the establishment of a high-level policy dialogue to review CDM experience for the post-2012 period and considered a 'risk-based-approach' to manage a surge in project registrations. Key discussions included proposals to tighten additionality testing for large-scale projects, the development of new transparency standards (PS, VVS, and PCP), and the establishment of liability rules for excess Certified Emission Reduction (CER) issuance resulting from fraud or negligence.

The policy analysis examines Canada's progress toward its 2020 emissions target of 17 per cent below 2005 levels and suggests closing the gap through expanded regulatory frameworks and a renewed focus on domestic and international abatement offsets.

The document argues that GHG offsets are a critical component of effective climate policy, providing flexibility for regulated industrial emitters and expanding emission reductions to non-regulated sectors. Through a review of international and domestic systems and original CIMS modelling, the brief demonstrates that offsets can significantly lower the societal cost of carbon policies. It proposes two primary implementation paths: integrating offsets as a compliance mechanism within sector-by-sector regulations or establishing a separate, independent offset regime to cover sectors like agriculture and waste.

The document argues that integrating offsets into Canada's GHG regulations can significantly lower compliance costs for industrial emitters and expand emission reductions to difficult-to-regulate sectors like agriculture and forestry. It highlights that offsets are not exclusive to cap-and-trade systems but can complement performance standards, as seen in jurisdictions like Alberta and New South Wales. Modelling suggests that unlimited access to domestic offsets could reduce costs for industrial emitters by up to 40% and nearly double total emission reductions when expanding coverage. The brief proposes two implementation paths: allowing offsets for direct compliance within sector regulations or establishing a separate, independent carbon management fund.

The report examines the role of US forests and forest products in mitigating climate change, emphasizing that a rational policy must look beyond simple sequestration to include the carbon storage and substitution benefits of harvested wood. It analyzes forest carbon stocks and flows, the impact of climate-driven disturbances like wildfire and pests, and the life-cycle carbon benefits of using wood instead of steel or concrete. The authors critique the high transaction costs and measurement uncertainties of project-based carbon offsets, suggesting alternative policies such as information disclosure and updated building codes to promote the use of sustainable forest products.

Sierra Club and CDM Watch object to the CDM Secretariat's decision to disregard a June 2011 letter requesting a review of the additionality of CDM Project 4533 (Coastal Andhra Power Ltd., India). The authors argue that the Secretariat's failure to forward the letter to the CDM Executive Board before the July 3 deadline—based on a minor project number error—undermines the CDM's credibility and transparency. They highlight that the project is high-risk, seeking over 12 million CERs while generating 215 million tons of CO2 emissions, and call for clarified guidelines on stakeholder engagement and the forwarding of public concerns.

The report identifies the 'Carbon Fat Cats'—ten companies, primarily in the steel and cement sectors, that amassed a combined surplus of 240 million emissions allowances between 2008 and 2010, valued at approximately €4.1bn. This over-allocation is attributed to inflated growth projections and the economic recession, allowing these firms to profit through windfall sales or banking permits for future use. In contrast, the power sector faces a significant deficit, effectively subsidising industrial surpluses. The report also highlights the use of cheap international offsets, some from direct rivals in China and India, which undermines industry claims regarding competitiveness and carbon leakage. Sandbag recommends increasing the EU emissions reduction target to 30%, implementing an allowance 'set-aside' for Phase III, restricting the use of offsets from rival industries, and improving data transparency regarding company ownership and waste gas transfers.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) is a global federation of 76 autonomous environmental groups with over 2 million members. Founded in 1971, the organization has evolved from a small group of activists into a decentralized network that prioritizes environmental and social justice. FoEI's current strategy, 'mobilise, resist, transform', focuses on challenging the neoliberal economic model, which it identifies as the driver of climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource depletion. The federation advocates for key concepts such as 'environmental space', 'ecological debt', and 'food sovereignty' to create sustainable societies. Its work spans several core areas, including climate and energy justice, forest protection, food sovereignty, and resisting extractive industries like mining, oil, and gas.

The report criticizes the World Bank for its continued investment in 'dirty energy' and its leadership in expanding carbon markets. It highlights specific projects, such as the Medupi coal plant in South Africa and the Nam Theun 2 dam in Laos, as evidence of environmental and social harm. The document further contends that the Bank's promotion of REDD and carbon offsets leads to the privatization of forests and the marginalization of indigenous rights, while its role as an interim trustee for the Green Climate Fund is viewed as undemocratic and conflicted.