Search Climate Insights Directory

Carbon Market Watch opposes a pilot phase for the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA), arguing that the lack of established rules on environmental integrity and accounting makes such a phase premature. The organization warns that recognizing "early action" from a pilot could undermine future post-2020 climate regime negotiations and set a dangerous precedent for low-quality market units. It suggests that the FVA process should instead be used to define rigorous standards for real, permanent, and additional mitigation and to resolve double-counting issues, particularly those seen in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The document examines the AAU market from 2008 to 2012, focusing on how Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries used Green Investment Schemes (GIS) to transform 'hot air'—surplus emission rights resulting from economic downturns—into funding for climate mitigation. It analyzes the strategies of seller countries like Estonia and the Czech Republic, which were successful due to transparent monitoring, and buyer countries like Japan and Spain, which used these deals for technology exports. The report highlights a significant price drop in AAUs by 2012 and discusses the potential for GIS to inform future fund-based mechanisms like NAMAs in developing countries.

The paper examines the potential for international offsets to provide a net decrease in global GHG emissions, distinguishing between 'surplus reductions' (actual abatement exceeding credits issued) and 'net atmospheric benefit' (reductions beyond country pledges). It argues that achieving a net benefit requires high confidence in additionality, the implementation of measures like pre-issuance discounts or stringent baselines, and accounting rules that prevent double-counting. Analysis of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) suggests that industrial gas projects (HFC-23 and N2O) are the most promising candidates for yielding a net decrease, potentially providing 80 to 100 million tonnes CO2e in 2020, provided host countries do not count these reductions toward their own pledges.

The analysis finds that sustainable development benefits vary significantly across bioenergy project types, with those utilizing agricultural farm residues claiming the most benefits and those using industrial forest residues claiming the fewest.

The text highlights the ecological and social costs of coal mining in Central India, specifically the loss of biodiversity and displacement of forest communities. It notes that despite doubling coal production capacity since 2007, 400 million Indians still lack electricity. The document criticizes the failure of 22 out of 29 Indian states to meet Renewable Purchase Obligation (RPO) targets in 2012 and argues that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) acts as a fossil fuel subsidy by providing credits to coal plants that do not achieve real emission reductions.

The author critiques the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) for being corporately controlled and failing to deliver promised benefits to poor communities, particularly in India. The text argues that carbon trading should function as reparation for environmental damage, benefiting the underprivileged rather than subsidizing industry. To demonstrate an alternative, the author highlights LAYA's micro-scale projects involving energy-efficient woodstoves and clean drinking water, which share surplus resources with the community, and notes the Fair Climate Network's goal to facilitate 50 similar projects.

The report argues that the EU ETS has failed to drive domestic emissions reductions due to a cap set against inflated projections and a flood of low-quality offsets. It finds that the system is now cancelling out approximately 700 million tonnes of abatement from other EU policies. The author recommends the permanent removal of 1.7 billion allowances from Phase 3 auctions to restore environmental integrity and increase Europe's 2020 climate target to 30% below 1990 levels.

A coalition of environmental and human rights organizations requests that the UN Independent Expert on Human Rights and the Environment examine the Barro Blanco dam project in Panama. The authors argue that the project, registered under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), has proceeded without adequate consultation with the indigenous Ngäbe people, leading to threats to their land, culture, and physical security, including state-sponsored violence against environmental defenders.

A coalition of NGOs requests that UN Special Rapporteur James Anaya intervene in the Barro Blanco hydroelectric project in Panama to protect the Ngäbe people from imminent threats to their territories and physical security. The document argues that the project, expected to be completed by May 2014, will flood indigenous lands and cultural sites, and was approved despite failures in environmental impact assessments and stakeholder consultation. It further highlights reports of police violence against protestors and the Panamanian government's failure to fulfill a March 2012 agreement regarding an expert assessment of the project's controversies.

A group of international and local NGOs is urging the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to intervene in the Barro Blanco hydroelectric project in Panama. They claim the project threatens the Ngäbe people's territories, culture, and physical security, citing failures in environmental impact assessments and a lack of free, prior and informed consent. The coalition highlights state-sponsored violence against protestors and the Panamanian government's failure to implement a promised expert assessment of the project's impacts.

The policy brief examines the climate impact of aviation, which contributes between 5% and 14% of global climate emissions. It critiques the reliance on offsetting, arguing that only a cap-and-trade system with a strict cap can deliver real in-sector reductions. The document analyzes ICAO's proposed measures, including a 'basket of measures' and various market-based options, while warning that low-quality offsets from mechanisms like the CDM and JI undermine environmental integrity. It also details the EU's attempt to include international flights in the EU-ETS and the subsequent 'stop the clock' derogation to allow ICAO to find a global solution.

The document examines the environmental and social challenges of international aviation, highlighting that the sector may be responsible for up to 14% of man-made climate change. It criticizes the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) for a lack of binding measures and analyzes the European Union's attempts to unilaterally regulate aviation emissions via the EU-ETS. The brief argues that offsetting is not a long-term solution and warns against the use of low-quality credits from mechanisms like Joint Implementation (JI) or oversupplied cap-and-trade systems. It recommends that any global aviation scheme must prioritize in-sector reductions and generate finance for climate action in developing countries.

The document critiques the International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) progress toward a market-based measure (MBM) for international aviation emissions. It argues that the industry's preference for 100% offsetting fails to incentivize actual emission reductions within the sector and warns that low-quality offsets could exacerbate climate impacts. The author advocates for a cap-and-trade scheme with a stringent cap and strict quality restrictions on eligible offset credits to ensure environmental integrity.

China is implementing seven regional pilot emissions trading systems (ETS) in Beijing, Chongqing, Shanghai, Tianjin, Guangdong, Hubei, and Shenzhen to test the framework for a national ETS after 2016. These pilots could regulate between 0.8 and 1 billion tonnes of CO2 and may incorporate price control mechanisms to ensure market stability. Additionally, the pilots are expected to allow the use of Chinese Certified Emissions Reductions (CCERs), a government-administered offset program based on the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), with potential demand reaching 100 million offsets per year by 2015.

The document discusses the ongoing negotiations in Bonn regarding the FVA and NMM, highlighting the need for standards that ensure real, permanent, and verified mitigation outcomes while avoiding double counting. Carbon Market Watch proposes specific governance and accounting measures to secure net atmospheric benefits and uphold human rights.

Carbon Market Watch argues that existing carbon markets have collapsed due to oversupply and poor quality, specifically citing the CDM and JI. The briefing recommends strengthening additionality criteria, shortening crediting periods, and establishing mandatory human rights and sustainability safeguards. For new mechanisms like the FVA and NMM, it advocates for a binding international governance structure and a common transaction tracking mechanism to prevent double counting of emission reductions.

The report evaluates the 'Doha Gateway' decisions from a human rights perspective, noting that while human rights are not explicitly mentioned in the Doha outcomes, they are referenced via the Cancun Agreements. The analysis covers mitigation ambition, loss and damage mechanisms, REDD+ safeguards, the Clean Development Mechanism's lack of appeals processes, public participation under Article 6, and the adoption of 'gender balance' over 'gender equality'.

Carbon Market Watch and a coalition of environmental organizations call on Iberia to avoid using industrial gas offset credits, arguing that such credits lack environmental integrity and undermine the EU ETS and the Montreal Protocol.

Carbon Market Watch and several partner organizations sent an open letter to Air Berlin requesting that the airline avoid using industrial gas offset credits from HFC-23 and adipic acid projects. The authors argue that these credits lack environmental integrity, do not represent real emissions reductions, and undermine the EU ETS and the Montreal Protocol.

Carbon Market Watch and a coalition of NGOs call on Air France to protect the integrity of the EU ETS by avoiding industrial gas offsets, arguing that HFC-23 and adipic acid projects lack environmental integrity and undermine climate objectives.