Search Climate Insights Directory

The report criticizes the World Bank for its continued funding of coal-fired power plants and large hydropower projects, which it claims lock developing nations into high-carbon futures and cause significant social and environmental harm. It specifically highlights the Medupi plant in South Africa and the Tata Mundra plant in India as examples of 'dirty energy' investment. The document also attacks the Bank's role in expanding carbon markets and REDD schemes, arguing that these mechanisms privatize forests, marginalize Indigenous peoples, and allow rich nations to avoid real emission cuts. Finally, it expresses concern over the Bank's role as the interim trustee of the Green Climate Fund, citing a lack of democratic accountability and a poor track record on social justice.

The report outlines a pathway for Seattle to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. By implementing aggressive strategies across transportation, buildings, and waste, the city could reduce per capita core emissions by 91% relative to 2008 levels. Key drivers include a massive shift toward electric vehicles, deep energy efficiency retrofits in the built environment, and a transition to low-carbon energy sources like biomass-fired district energy. While the scenario achieves a 90% reduction in core emissions, the report notes that the final 10% may require offsets or sequestration.

The report analyzes how the EU can move to a 30% greenhouse gas reduction target by 2020. It finds that full implementation of existing renewable energy and energy efficiency targets could lead to a domestic reduction of approximately 30%, though current policy instruments for energy efficiency are insufficient. The report also examines the role of offsets and LULUCF accounting, noting that these could reduce the required domestic effort to approximately 20% while still nominally meeting a 30% target. It concludes that the EU ETS cap would need significant adjustment—potentially to 29-43% below 2005 levels—to remain consistent with these targets.

The document concludes that a federal US carbon market is unrealistic for the foreseeable future, but identifies potential for linking the EU ETS with regional systems like the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) and California. It highlights that while the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is operational, its low prices make it an unattractive linking partner. The authors argue that a bottom-up climate architecture, rather than a single global carbon market, is the most likely trajectory for international climate cooperation.

CDM Watch and partner organizations are calling on EU Environment Ministers to ensure that HFC-23 and adipic acid (N2O AA) offset credits are banned from national registries for non-traded sectors by April 2013. While these credits are banned from the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) as of 30 April 2013, the authors argue that the Effort Sharing Decision (ESD) could be exploited to allow their use toward national targets, undermining domestic emissions reductions and the Montreal Protocol.

The submission argues that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has already failed its primary objectives and that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is unlikely to meet the specific requirements of this offset framework, making its inclusion inappropriate.

The report examines ten indigenous carbon market projects across Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Mexico. It highlights diverse methodologies—including afforestation, avoided deforestation, and traditional fire management—to demonstrate how carbon revenues can support environmental, cultural, and economic goals. The document identifies systemic challenges such as a lack of federal policy, difficulties with third-party verification of tribal land governance, and the technical complexity of proving 'additionality'. It recommends participatory planning, the use of voluntary markets for 'co-benefits', and the development of indigenous-specific verification resources to ensure local ownership and sustainability.

The report assesses how the EU can achieve a 30% greenhouse gas reduction by 2020, analyzing the interplay between the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), renewable energy targets, and energy efficiency goals. It finds that full implementation of energy efficiency and renewable targets, combined with post-recession baselines, could lead to a domestic reduction of approximately 30%. The analysis also explores the impact of offsets and LULUCF accounting, noting that these mechanisms could reduce the required domestic effort to between 17% and 22% while still nominally meeting a 30% target. The report concludes that a 25% to 30% domestic reduction is consistent with long-term goals of 80% to 95% reduction by 2050.

The document critiques carbon markets, specifically the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), as tools that perpetuate dependence on fossil fuels and facilitate 'carbon colonialism'. It highlights how offsetting allows rich nations to outsource their climate responsibilities to developing countries, often resulting in human rights violations, land grabbing, and the funding of projects like coal plants or gas flaring. The author advocates for a systemic transformation based on energy efficiency, renewable energy, and public climate finance instead of market-based mechanisms.

The document serves as a resource for First Nations in Canada to navigate the economic opportunities and risks of carbon markets. It emphasizes that while global literature on indigenous peoples and carbon markets exists, there is a significant information void specifically regarding First Nations in Canada. The report argues that for indigenous participation to be equitable, governments must recognize carbon rights, obtain free, prior and informed consent, and adopt decentralized governance models that prioritize local employment over simple financial compensation. It also highlights the technical necessity of accurate carbon accounting, particularly in the boreal forest, where factors like insect infestations and soil moisture significantly impact carbon stock measurements.

The report argues that carbon trading is an ineffective and often corrupt mechanism for addressing climate change in Africa. It examines the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and voluntary markets, finding that they frequently favor large industrial polluters over sustainable development and marginalize local communities. Through case studies in South Africa, Uganda, and Ethiopia, the authors illustrate how 'additionality' is often fabricated and how projects can lead to land grabs or the subsidization of fossil fuel expansion. The document concludes that the carbon market is structurally flawed and should be abolished in favor of direct public funding and low-carbon development pathways based on historical responsibility.

The authors argue that current community-scale emissions targets, such as 80% reductions by 2050, do not account for the UNFCCC principle of "common but differentiated responsibility." By applying the Greenhouse Development Rights (GDR) framework to Seattle, the study finds that an equitable global obligation would require the city to become carbon "negative" before 2020. This does not imply physical sequestration but rather a role where wealthy cities dramatically reduce their own emissions while financing low-carbon transitions in developing regions. The paper suggests that communities can use offsets or direct technology and financial transfers to meet these obligations and recommends that local governments integrate global equity into their official climate action plans.

The document examines the 'Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation' (REDD) framework, highlighting how its implementation often prioritizes corporate profit and carbon market volatility over the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Through case studies in countries like Indonesia, Mexico, and Paraguay, it illustrates risks such as 'leakage', the displacement of forest-dependent populations, and the lack of genuine free, prior, and informed consent. The report concludes that REDD should be decoupled from carbon markets and instead focus on reducing demand for agricultural commodities and timber while rewarding those who have historically conserved forests.

The report critiques the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) framework, highlighting how its implementation often leads to the marginalization of indigenous communities and the privatization of forest resources. Through case studies in countries like Indonesia, Mexico, and Paraguay, it argues that REDD is being used by transnational energy companies to 'greenwash' their images while continuing fossil fuel extraction. The document warns that linking REDD to unstable carbon markets and allowing monoculture plantations may undermine actual emission reductions and exacerbate land conflicts.

The report critiques 'Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries' (REDD), claiming it risks exacerbating inequality and privatizing forest resources. It highlights how energy companies use REDD for greenwashing while continuing fossil fuel extraction. Through case studies in Indonesia, Mexico, Paraguay, and others, the document illustrates failures in community consultation, the risk of 'leakage' where deforestation simply shifts location, and the danger of including monoculture plantations in carbon accounting. It concludes that REDD should be decoupled from volatile carbon markets and instead based on public funding and the recognition of Indigenous land rights.

The report critiques the 'Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries' (REDD) mechanism, highlighting how it can exacerbate inequality and privatize forest resources. Through case studies in countries like Indonesia, Mexico, and Paraguay, it demonstrates that REDD projects often exclude indigenous communities from decision-making and serve as a 'greenwash' for fossil fuel and logging companies. The document warns that without reducing demand for agricultural commodities and timber, REDD may lead to 'leakage,' where deforestation simply shifts to other areas, rendering the mechanism ineffective for global climate mitigation.

The document argues that the lack of harmonized accounting rules for Annex I pledges in the Copenhagen Accord creates uncertainty regarding the actual level of climate ambition. It recommends that the Conference of the Parties (COP) mandate the development of consistent, transparent, and accurate measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) guidelines. Specifically, it addresses the need for standardized coverage of greenhouse gases and sectors, rules for land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF), the prevention of double counting in international offsets, and the management of surplus assigned amount units (AAUs) from the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period.

The report evaluates three scenarios for reducing the carbon footprint of university data centres: relocation to zero-carbon facilities, relocation to low-emission urban grids with waste heat recovery, and modifying existing centres for waste heat capture. Analysis of three universities showed that only the University of Alberta's waste heat capture scenario yielded a positive net present value (NPV) from carbon credit sales. The combined annual carbon footprint for the studied centres was 11,305 tonnes of CO2e. The study concludes that while individual university projects are generally not economically attractive via carbon credits, a green community cloud operated by CANARIE offers a more viable economic and leadership opportunity.

The report evaluates the consistency of carbon offset protocols across different programs, specifically focusing on landfill methane, manure digesters, and afforestation. By comparing U.S. EPA Climate Leaders’ protocols with those of the CDM, RGGI, CCAR, and CCX, the analysis finds that quantification is not yet standardized, meaning a ton of carbon offset is not consistently valued across different project protocols.

The study examines three scenarios for greening data centres at Dalhousie University, the University of Ottawa, and the University of Alberta. It finds that relocating to remote renewable sites (Scenario 1) or urban low-emission grids (Scenario 2) is economically unviable due to high capital costs. Only on-site waste heat recovery (Scenario 3) showed a positive net present value for one institution. The report suggests a 'green community cloud' managed by CANARIE as a more viable alternative to individual university efforts.