Search Climate Insights Directory

The report finds a significant gap between where VCM projects are located and where the managing companies are based, with a strong prevalence of companies from wealthy countries operating in less affluent regions, particularly in Africa. This disparity, combined with a lack of financial transparency, raises concerns that the VCM may not be effectively channeling funds to intended beneficiaries in developing nations.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) urges the USDA to implement a high bar for quality when listing carbon credit protocols under the Greenhouse Gas Technical Assistance Provider and Third-Party Verifier Program. CATF argues that low-quality credits undermine market integrity and financial returns for landowners. They propose a framework based on four core competencies: non-permanence risk reduction, additionality and baseline establishment, quantification and monitoring, and leakage accounting. CATF specifically warns against listing soil carbon protocols due to durability and monitoring issues and suggests that the USDA provide information on non-offset mechanisms for climate-smart practices.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and Earthjustice advocate for state-mandated transparent ESG data disclosure to prevent greenwashing and human rights violations. They specifically criticize the use of carbon offsets by fossil fuel companies to justify the expansion of oil and gas production, arguing that such practices rearrange rather than reduce emissions and often violate human rights.

The 2024 update study by Perspectives Climate Group finds that while CAR, Verra, and ACR have improved their grievance processes since 2023, significant shortcomings persist across all analysed VCM programmes. Key issues include limited accessibility, lack of independent review guardrails, and a general absence of detailed potential remedies. The report specifically highlights the case of the Amerindian Peoples’ Association (APA) in Guyana under the ART mechanism, which was dismissed on formal grounds, illustrating the risks of ad hoc procedural changes and biased reviewer appointments. The study concludes that most VCM mechanisms remain insufficient in providing a fair, predictable, and independent path to redress for affected stakeholders.

The document argues that relying on soil carbon sequestration to offset livestock emissions is risky due to finite storage capacity, the reversibility of carbon storage, and the significant warming potential of methane and nitrous oxide, which can outweigh sequestration gains.

The report highlights a surplus of approximately 829 million carbon credits in the voluntary carbon market (VCM), with renewable energy (RE) projects accounting for 35% of all project types. It argues that large-scale, grid-connected RE projects are generally non-additional because they are economically feasible without carbon credit revenues. The document traces this issue back to lax methodologies from the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), specifically methodology ACM0002, which has been adopted by VCM standards like Verra and Gold Standard. The report also notes human rights concerns, including forced displacements linked to large hydroelectric dams. Furthermore, it observes a trend of anonymous retirement for 89.9% of RE credits, suggesting buyers are aware of their low quality but purchase them due to low cost. The report warns that the transition of CDM projects to the Paris Agreement's Article 6 mechanism risks flooding new markets with low-quality credits.

The document asserts that UN REDD+ was not designed as a market mechanism and lacks the necessary requirements for additionality, permanence, and robust quantification to qualify as high-quality carbon credits under Article 6.2. It highlights that while ITMOs have stronger reporting and anti-double-counting rules, neither system provides sufficient third-party verification or monitoring after activity conclusion. The author concludes that forest-related activities are ill-suited for offsetting due to inflated baselines and risks of non-permanence, urging a shift toward non-market-based financing.

The report finds that most voluntary carbon market standards have inadequate or non-existent grievance mechanisms, leaving local communities vulnerable. While Gold Standard and the Green Climate Fund's Independent Redress Mechanism are identified as best practices, others like the Global Carbon Council lack any mechanism, and standards such as Verra, CAR, ACR, and ART suffer from shortcomings in accessibility, transparency, and independence.

The document examines the three mechanisms of Article 6 (A6.2, A6.4, and A6.8) of the Paris Agreement, highlighting the tension between rapid operationalisation and the need for high-integrity standards to prevent greenwashing and human rights abuses. It details the specific sticking points for COP29, including transparency in bilateral trading (A6.2), the role of the Supervisory Body in the global market (A6.4), and the potential for non-market approaches (A6.8) to provide alternative climate finance. The briefing also analyzes the influence of these UN rules on the voluntary carbon market (VCM) and the controversies surrounding REDD+ credits and land-use offsets.

The document argues that States have a legal obligation under international climate change law and human rights law to implement effective, science-based measures to mitigate climate change, specifically through the phase-out of fossil fuels and the regulation of non-state actors. It asserts that failure to do so constitutes an internationally wrongful act, triggering responsibilities for cessation of harm and full reparation, including financial compensation for loss and damage.

The document outlines the necessity of a Global Just Transition to phase out fossil fuels by 2050, emphasizing the disproportionate economic burden on developing nations. It proposes a framework for financing this transition through new multilateral funds, the redirection of USD 5.9 trillion in annual fossil fuel subsidies, and systemic reforms to debt, taxation, and international financial institutions.

The document evaluates the Montreal Protocol, Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreement to identify effective mechanisms for production controls. It argues that legally binding national targets and a mandatory global target are superior to voluntary commitments. Key recommendations for the plastics treaty include establishing a global production target with a past-year baseline, implementing national phasedown schedules, banning the expansion of production facilities (specifically ethylene plants), and eliminating production subsidies.

The report argues that Occidental Petroleum's (Oxy) climate strategy is misaligned with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. It finds that Oxy's net-zero targets are inadequate, focusing primarily on scope 1 and 2 emissions while ignoring the vast majority of its carbon footprint in scope 3. The analysis highlights a heavy overreliance on unproven direct air capture (DAC) technology, which the report claims is used as a 'licence to pollute' and a mechanism to prolong oil and gas extraction through enhanced oil recovery (EOR). The report further asserts that Oxy's 'net-zero oil' claims are scientifically invalid and that its lobbying efforts for government subsidies for carbon removals contradict its public climate commitments.

The Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2024 finds that the median absolute emissions reduction commitment for 51 assessed companies is only 30% by 2030, falling short of the 43%-48% reduction required by the IPCC. The report criticizes the heavy reliance on 'questionable solutions' such as carbon offsets, insetting, and Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) to mask a lack of genuine decarbonization. It specifically highlights a 'Scope 3 loophole' in the VCMI framework that could allow companies to use credits for up to 50% of their annual Scope 3 emissions. The document advocates for 'beyond value chain mitigation' (BVCM) and calls for the European Union to ban all compensation claims and for the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) to prohibit the use of carbon credits to meet targets.

The guide establishes a methodology for assessing corporate climate responsibility across four key areas: emissions tracking and disclosure, target setting, emission reduction measures, and responsibility for unabated and residual emissions. It emphasizes alignment with 1.5°C-compatible pathways, the necessity of covering all emission scopes (including Scope 3), and the distinction between genuine emission reductions and misleading offsetting or 'insetting' claims. The document provides specific benchmarks for various industrial sectors and detailed criteria for high-integrity renewable electricity procurement and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategies.

The report evaluates the Paris 2024 climate strategy, noting that while efforts in construction and food supply are robust, other sectors like transport and energy lack transparency and detailed methodology. It criticizes the evolution of public claims from 'carbon neutrality' to 'climate positive' as misleading and highlights a lack of transparency in carbon credit purchases. The authors argue that future games must downscale or decentralize to align with the 1.5°C goal and should avoid partnering with companies whose climate pathways are incompatible with the Paris Agreement.

Reclaim Finance finds that Shell's investment strategy prioritizes oil and gas expansion and shareholder returns over renewable energy, leading to production levels and LNG capacities that significantly exceed NZE requirements by 2030. The report notes that Shell has reduced its carbon intensity targets and relies heavily on unproven carbon capture and offsets, while its renewable energy growth remains marginal compared to its fossil fuel output.

The EU's Carbon Removals Certification Framework (CRCF) is criticized for failing to mandate 'corresponding adjustments,' allowing both companies and countries to claim the same emissions reductions. This 'double counting' risks displacing necessary climate action and contradicts the EU's own international stance on additionality and the rules of the Paris Agreement's Article 6.

The document outlines the two primary types of carbon markets—cap-and-trade and carbon crediting systems—and distinguishes between compliance markets, which are based on obligatory targets, and voluntary markets used for corporate social responsibility. It highlights the role of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement in establishing new international market mechanisms. The text critically assesses carbon offsetting, particularly REDD+ forestry projects, noting that they often generate exaggerated credits and lack adequate safeguards. It concludes that carbon credits cannot scientifically be proven to reliably neutralise one tonne of CO2 and recommends that companies move toward a 'climate contribution' or 'beyond value chain mitigation' (BVCM) model to provide climate finance without making misleading offsetting claims.

The report evaluates transparency in the voluntary carbon market (VCM) by analyzing a sample of 140 projects across the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), Gold Standard (GS), American Carbon Registry (ACR), and Climate Action Reserve (CAR). It finds that no single standard provides full disclosure, with significant gaps caused by both inadequate rule-setting and insufficient enforcement. Specifically, CAR and ACR have structural limitations regarding the public disclosure of monitoring reports. The study also identifies widespread issues with mislabelled, duplicated, or missing documents, which rating agencies confirm hinder the independent assessment of carbon credit quality. The report recommends implementing stronger quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) processes, standardized naming conventions, and regular audits to align with Integrity Council for Voluntary Carbon Markets (ICVCM) requirements.