Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that carbon markets are 'false climate solutions' designed by polluters to maintain profitable systems of capitalism and neocolonialism. It explains how carbon credits are generated through nature-based solutions (NBS) and technological fixes, which often lead to land grabbing and the violation of indigenous rights. The guide provides a framework for communities to identify 'red flags' in contracts, exercise their right to say no, and employ strategies of international solidarity to oppose the commodification of nature.

The document argues that carbon markets are a continuation of colonial and capitalist systems that allow major polluters to avoid reducing emissions through 'greenwashing'. It explains how carbon credits are generated—often through flawed calculations in nature-based solutions or technological fixes—and details the risks to communities, including land grabbing and the violation of indigenous rights. The guide provides practical advice for communities to identify predatory contracts, exercise their right to say no, and seek alternatives like community forest management and agroecology.

The document argues that carbon markets are 'false climate solutions' that allow major polluters to continue emitting greenhouse gases through 'greenwashing' while causing harm to Indigenous Peoples and local communities. It describes how carbon credits are generated from projects—including nature-based solutions and technological patches—and warns that these often lead to land grabbing, human rights violations, and the failure to actually reduce global emissions. The guide provides a framework for communities to identify predatory contracts, demand Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), and organize international solidarity to oppose the financialization of nature.

The International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE) urges the Australian government to implement mandatory standardized climate disclosure to stop greenwashing, create transparent tracking systems for climate communication funding to expose hidden influence networks, and integrate climate information literacy and 'inoculation' strategies into education curricula to build public resilience.

Carbon Market Watch condemns FIFA's hosting decisions for the 2030 and 2034 World Cups, asserting that the events will cause severe environmental damage. The organization highlights the failure of the 2022 Qatar World Cup's carbon neutrality claims and warns that the 2030 tournament's multi-continental structure and Saudi Arabia's 2034 bid—which includes building 11 new stadiums—will lead to massive emissions from construction and air travel. The statement also links these decisions to the influence of polluting corporate sponsors like Aramco and raises concerns over migrant worker deaths in host nations.

The document recommends that the European Commission set binding sectoral gross emission reduction targets for the agri-food sector, avoiding carbon offsets and technical fixes in favour of agroecological and organic farming. It calls for a strategy to transition away from intensive livestock rearing, including a reduction in farm animal numbers and a corresponding dietary shift. Finally, it proposes the establishment of an Agri-Food Just Transition Fund to de-risk business transformation and a reform of the Common Agricultural Policy to remunerate farmers for ecosystem services.

The document describes Canada's dual-track carbon pricing approach, distinguishing between consumer carbon taxes and industrial systems for large emitters. It details two primary industrial models—emissions-intensity based systems and cap-and-trade systems—and compares their application across different Canadian jurisdictions, highlighting the specific frameworks used in Alberta, Quebec, and the federal backstop system.

The report establishes a comprehensive framework for banks, investors, and insurers to create climate transition plans aligned with the 1.5°C goal. It details requirements for decarbonization targets, action plans, and engagement strategies, while providing 'red flag' indicators to identify greenwashing. The authors argue that current regulations are too vague and call for mandatory, standardized plans that include an immediate end to financing new fossil fuel production.

The document establishes a reference framework for financial actors to evaluate power utility transition plans across four categories: emissions reduction, energy planning, capital expenditure (CAPEX), and climate planning. It argues that for a plan to be 1.5°C-aligned, utilities must commit to a carbon-neutral power sector by 2035 in Europe and OECD countries (2040 elsewhere), implement plant-by-plant closure plans for fossil fuels without sales or conversions, and dedicate over 86% of CAPEX to sustainable technologies by 2030. The guide also recommends that financial institutions implement sectoral exclusion policies for fossil gas and achieve a 6:1 financing ratio in favor of sustainable power over fossil fuels by 2030.

The document argues that terms like "net zero" and "carbon neutral" are often meaningless to consumers and prone to greenwashing, particularly when they rely on offsets or distant targets. It advises marketers to prioritize immediate emissions cuts over long-term goals and to use plain, truthful language to maintain consumer trust.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and McKinsey have proposed using 'transition credits' (carbon offsets) to attract finance for the early retirement of coal plants in Asia. Reclaim Finance argues that this approach replicates the failures of the broader offset industry, specifically regarding the inability to prove 'additionality' and the risk of inflated emission reduction estimates. The document asserts that offsets create perverse incentives that may deter governments from enacting national coal phaseout policies or providing concessional finance. It concludes that a successful transition requires increased public concessional funding and accelerated investment in sustainable power alternatives rather than a reliance on tradeable offsets.

The document argues that carbon markets can fill a critical funding gap for African smallholder farmers, who received only 0.8% of climate finance in 2023. It highlights that soil carbon interventions provide dual benefits of climate mitigation and adaptation by improving soil health, water retention, and crop yields. However, the briefing notes that African agriculture remains underrepresented in carbon markets, with only 12 identified projects across the continent. Barriers include high soil sampling costs, strict evidence requirements for baselines, and a lack of localised research. The author recommends that policymakers avoid 'one-size-fits-all' regulations and instead prioritise projects that deliver non-carbon co-benefits like food security and nutrition.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the EU's net carbon sink is declining rapidly and that the current LULUCF Regulation contains loopholes, such as offsetting flexibility and reliance on forest biomass, that undermine climate goals. The organization recommends removing offsetting mechanisms, preventing double counting between national inventories and corporate claims under the Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF), limiting forest harvesting for bioenergy, and strengthening synergies between LULUCF targets and the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) and Nature Restoration Law.

Reclaim Finance outlines the stakes for COP29, emphasizing that the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) for North-South climate finance should be at least a trillion dollars and provided as grants or grant-equivalents. The organization warns against allowing private finance or carbon offsets to count toward these public obligations, noting that private capital often bypasses the poorest communities and adaptation projects. While acknowledging the role of private finance in tripling renewable energy, the document criticizes the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) for its failure to restrict fossil fuel financing and the methodological flaws in Net-Zero Banking Alliance targets. It further highlights the failure of Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) in South Africa, Indonesia, and Vietnam due to a lack of concessional funding and private sector risk aversion.

The IISD welcomes Canada's draft regulations for an oil and gas pollution cap, noting that the sector accounts for 31% of Canada's total emissions. While supporting the cap-and-trade system to drive decarbonization and net-zero goals by 2050, the IISD warns that a proposed 'decarbonization program' could lead to double-counting of emissions reductions. The organization advocates for the continued exclusion of international carbon offsets and the use of only real, additional, and verifiable domestic offsets.

The report examines 22 of the world's largest meat and dairy companies, finding that their combined emissions are comparable to those of major oil companies and entire nations. It argues that corporate net-zero targets are largely non-aligned with the 1.5°C warming limit and that the industry relies on 'techno-fixes'—such as feed additives and biogas—and 'regenerative agriculture' to distract from the need to reduce livestock production. The analysis further highlights a lack of mandatory agricultural methane targets in the 11 countries where these companies are headquartered, attributing this to 'agricultural exceptionalism' and industry political influence.

The policy brief contends that carbon markets are a flawed mechanism that fails to provide real climate finance, instead allowing Global North polluters to avoid direct emission reductions while potentially harming Global South communities.

The document assesses the effectiveness of the EU ETS and CORSIA in addressing aviation emissions, finding that both schemes fail to cover non-CO2 effects and that CORSIA's reliance on low-quality offsets and a high baseline limits its climate impact. It recommends extending the EU ETS to all flights departing from the European Economic Area (EEA) by 2027.

The report finds a substantial divergence in ambition between the EU ETS and CORSIA. While the EU ETS is moving toward 100% auctioning of allowances by 2026 and high carbon prices, CORSIA relies on offsetting emissions above a baseline, resulting in significantly lower emissions coverage and a much weaker price signal. The EU may expand the EU ETS to extra-EEA flights by 2027 if CORSIA is deemed insufficient to meet climate goals.

The briefing contrasts two competing approaches to corporate renewable electricity accounting: 24/7 hourly matching and the 'avoided emissions' model proposed by the Emissions First Partnership (EFP). It argues that 24/7 matching provides a necessary demand signal for grid decarbonisation and storage technologies, whereas the EFP proposal is a "repackaging of the controversial offsetting model" that allows companies to claim emissions reductions without actually decarbonising the grids they use. The document urges the GHG Protocol and the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) to adopt granular, hourly, and local accounting standards to prevent corporate lock-in of fossil fuel infrastructure and to ensure genuine progress toward the 1.5°C temperature limit.