Search Climate Insights Directory

The report critiques the industrial agribusiness model, describing it as a network of transnational corporations and financial institutions that prioritise profit maximisation through large-scale monocultures and high-input systems. It argues that these entities promote 'false solutions'—including voluntary certifications, sustainable intensification, and regenerative agriculture—to greenwash their image, capture policy-making processes, and commodify nature through carbon markets. The document highlights the negative impacts of this model, such as deforestation in Indonesia and Brazil, human rights violations, and the displacement of small-scale farmers in Argentina, while contrasting these with 'real peoples' solutions' based on food sovereignty and agroecology.

The report critiques the industrial agribusiness model, describing it as a network of transnational companies and financial institutions that prioritize profit and scale over environmental and social health. It argues that the industry employs 'false solutions'—market-based mechanisms and corporate-led certifications—to avoid genuine regulation and maintain control over the global food system. The document highlights specific examples, including the failure of RSPO certifications in Indonesia and the impact of no-till farming in Argentina, to demonstrate how these tactics often exacerbate deforestation and undermine small-scale producers.

The document evaluates the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), noting that while Target 4 supports preventing species extinction and Target 3 emphasizes quality in conserved areas, the framework is undermined by the implicit enablement of offsetting. The author argues that the GBF lacks clear prohibitions on destructive activities like deep-sea mining and fails to adequately link conservation to industrial drivers of biodiversity loss. It suggests that civil society can use the GBF's targets on restoration and governance to hold governments accountable.

The document analyzes the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), highlighting its recognition of Indigenous Peoples' rights and the goal to protect 30% of the world's land and sea. However, it criticizes the framework for relying on corporate self-reporting, lacking mandatory regulations for transnational corporations, and promoting 'sustainable intensification' in agriculture, which may favor biotech and agribusiness. It also warns that the GBF's approach to restoration and conservation may enable harmful offsetting practices and the 'financialisation of nature'.

The report finds that while the VCM is viewed as a strategic tool for achieving net zero and incentivizing internal decarbonization, its growth is stymied by a lack of recognition from climate goal standard-setters and perceived reputational risks. Survey data suggests that if standard-setters like the SBTi recognized carbon credits and regulatory claims codes were adopted, corporate spending and the setting of ambitious emissions targets would increase significantly.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) advocates for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to implement more rigorous standards for voluntary carbon credit derivatives. CATF suggests adding 'durability' and 'vintage' to the CFTC's proposed commodity characteristics and requiring dynamic baseline analysis, independent third-party verification, and explicit accounting for the risk of carbon reversal to prevent low-quality credits from distorting prices and undermining climate goals.

The guide outlines how to detect greenwashing by analyzing emissions data, target setting, and the use of controversial technologies. It emphasizes the importance of absolute emissions over intensity targets and warns against the over-reliance on carbon offsets, natural gas, and unproven carbon removal technologies.

Carbon Market Watch criticizes the EU's Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) provisional deal, claiming it allows carbon removals and temporary storage to substitute for actual emission reductions. The organization warns that the framework enables double counting between voluntary markets and national climate policies, incentivizes short-term carbon storage that lacks long-term climate benefit, and employs insufficient sustainability criteria for biomass. While noting some positive inclusions like mandatory biodiversity co-benefits for carbon farming, CMW asserts the CRCF is a 'missed opportunity' that could deter climate action and calls for the deal to be rejected and rebooted.

Ember's submission to the NSW Parliament inquiry into Net Zero highlights that the coal mining sector is the biggest potential risk to the state's emission goals. The document argues that existing federal mechanisms, such as the Safeguard Mechanism and the Coal Mine Waste Gas method, are insufficient to drive material onsite reductions. Using Tahmoor Colliery as a case study, Ember demonstrates that Ventilation Air Methane (VAM) mitigation via Regenerative Thermal Oxidiser (RTO) technology is technically and commercially feasible but underutilised due to a lack of state-led regulatory pressure and the availability of carbon offsets. The submission calls for a pause on new coal mine expansions and a dedicated report from the Net Zero Commission by June 2025 to assess sectoral risks and develop a coal-specific emissions target.

The policy brief examines how Low-Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) can complement federal hydrogen investments by directing clean hydrogen toward high-priority sectors. It analyzes existing programs in California, Oregon, and Washington, providing four lessons for other states: regulating intrastate aviation fuel to move beyond biogenic feedstocks, phasing in maritime fuel regulation, managing biogenic feedstock demand to prevent indirect land use change, and implementing rigorous emissions accounting to avoid loopholes for blue and grey hydrogen.

The document explains the distinction between cap-and-trade systems (ETS) and baseline-and-credit mechanisms, detailing the evolution from Kyoto Protocol markets to the Paris Agreement's Article 6. It critiques carbon offsetting for enabling greenwashing and failing to reduce absolute emissions, while highlighting the specific shortcomings of CORSIA and REDD+. The guide advocates for a shift toward a 'climate contribution' approach where credits are cancelled without offsetting claims to support global climate action.

The document explains the distinction between emissions trading systems (ETS) and carbon credit attribution mechanisms, detailing the evolution from the Kyoto Protocol to the Paris Agreement. It critically assesses the effectiveness of various market mechanisms, including Article 6.2 and 6.4, CORSIA, and REDD+, highlighting systemic risks such as 'hot air', double counting, and greenwashing. The guide argues against the use of offsets for carbon neutrality and proposes a 'climate contribution' approach instead.

The document explains the difference between cap-and-trade systems and carbon credit mechanisms, detailing the evolution from the Kyoto Protocol to the Paris Agreement. It critiques carbon offsetting as a tool for greenwashing and argues for a shift toward 'climate contributions' where credits are retired without claims of neutrality.

The document serves as a comprehensive primer on carbon markets, distinguishing between emissions trading systems (cap-and-trade) and credit-based mechanisms. It details the evolution from the Kyoto Protocol's mechanisms to the Paris Agreement's Article 6, while critically assessing the risks of carbon offsetting, such as 'greenwashing' and the 'hot air' problem. The guide also examines the CORSIA framework for aviation and the private certification standards of the voluntary market, ultimately advocating for a shift from offsetting to a 'climate contribution' model.

The document argues that traditional carbon offsetting and 'neutrality' claims are scientifically illogical and misleading. It proposes the BVCM model, where companies provide climate finance as a complement to—not a substitute for—internal decarbonisation. It outlines prerequisites for credible claims, including science-based targets, deforestation-free commitments, and Paris-aligned lobbying, while evaluating different internal carbon pricing methods and investment vehicles like impact funds and direct financing.

The document describes CORSIA as a global mechanism designed to achieve "carbon-neutral growth" by requiring airlines to offset CO2 emissions that exceed a set baseline. It criticizes the scheme for its low ambition, specifically the lowering of the baseline to 85% of 2019 emissions for the period 2024-2035. The author argues that CORSIA is ineffective because it is voluntary until 2027, ignores non-CO2 impacts, and relies on low-priced, low-quality carbon credits that do not incentivize actual emission reductions.

Friends of the Earth International supports a general strike in Argentina on January 24, 2024, protesting President Javier Milei's 'Omnibus Law' and Emergency Decree (DNU). The organization criticizes the government's economic shock measures, the privatization of 41 state companies, and the repeal of laws protecting glaciers and native forests. It specifically condemns the creation of a national greenhouse gas emissions market and the restriction of the right to protest.

The report evaluates nine voluntary carbon neutrality standards and initiatives (VCNSIs) using the CARE (Coverage, Assurance, Responsiveness, and Engagement) methodology. While performing relatively well in Coverage and Assurance, the analysis reveals significant gaps in Responsiveness and Engagement. Key issues include the inconsistent inclusion of Scope 3 emissions, a lack of stringent mitigation targets aligned with 1.5°C pathways, and limited board diversity. The report recommends shifting from static 'neutrality' labels to dynamic progress-monitoring systems and suggests the creation of an oversight body to harmonize standards and prevent greenwashing.

The report analyzes the landscape of voluntary standards and initiatives for carbon management (VSICMs), categorizing them into four types: GHG inventories, carbon offsets, disclosure platforms, and carbon-neutrality certifications. It details the corporate carbon management cycle—from leadership decisions and inventorying to mitigation and offsetting—and identifies key drivers for adoption, including regulations, investment strategies, and consumer pressure. The document benchmarks 35 leading VSICMs and highlights challenges such as a lack of harmonization and the risk of greenwashing.

Reclaim Finance establishes a comprehensive framework to identify insufficient or greenwashed corporate climate transition plans. The report outlines five essential steps for a robust plan: setting science-based absolute emission targets, developing a detailed decarbonization strategy (including financial alignment and fossil fuel phase-outs), implementing a value-chain engagement strategy, integrating reporting and governance, and addressing just transition and biodiversity. It further maps these criteria to the EU's European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) and the European Central Bank's (ECB) supervisory expectations to help companies and financial institutions meet regulatory obligations.