Search Climate Insights Directory

The report evaluates the first two phases of the EU ETS, finding that while it successfully capped emissions, its actual abatement impact was modest (40–80 MtCO2/yr) and heavily influenced by the 2008-2009 financial crisis. It notes that the system failed to drive large-scale long-term low-carbon investment due to price volatility and over-allocation. The analysis also highlights significant 'windfall profits' in the power and industrial sectors resulting from free allowance allocations and the pass-through of carbon costs to consumers. The document concludes by suggesting strengthening measures such as price floors and set-asides, and reviews similar emerging schemes in jurisdictions like Australia, China, and the USA.

CDM Watch urges the CDM policy dialogue panel to reassess project eligibility to ensure contributions to a low carbon economy and to improve stakeholder involvement and transparency. The submission highlights the need to maintain environmental integrity across co-existing market mechanisms and specifically identifies issues such as additionality, HFC-23 abatement, and human rights for address.

Carbon Market Watch and partner organizations challenge the registration of the Bujagali Hydropower Project under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). They argue the project is non-additional because it was already completed and deemed the 'least-cost' power option regardless of carbon credit income. The letter also highlights environmental damage to Lake Victoria and the displacement of approximately 6,800 people.

The document examines how Vale leverages its relationship with the Brazilian government to lobby for lenient climate regulations and financial incentives for carbon offsets. It highlights the contradiction between Vale's corporate sustainability claims and its actual operations, specifically citing the Moatize coal project in Mozambique and the TKCSA steel plant in Brazil. The report characterizes these market-based mechanisms, including the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and REDD, as 'false solutions' that facilitate corporate profit while causing social displacement and environmental degradation.

The document analyzes South Africa's efforts to attract sustainable local and foreign investment through a combination of industrial policies, such as the New Growth Path (NGP), and a diverse catalogue of financial and fiscal incentives. It highlights a significant decline in foreign direct investment (FDI) between 2008 and 2010, attributed largely to high labor costs, and examines the 'Gateway into Africa' initiative designed to make South Africa a regional investment hub. The paper details various dti-managed incentives targeting SMMEs, industrial development, and specific sectors like automotive and film, while noting that many investors remain unaware of these schemes or find the application process cumbersome.

The report argues that the EU ETS has failed to provide a sufficient carbon price signal for low-carbon investment due to a massive surplus of allowances caused by the recession and complementary energy policies. It proposes a triad of measures: setting aside allowances to recalibrate the market, implementing a rising reserve price on auctions to create a price floor, and accelerating negotiations for 2030 climate goals.

The report investigates the governance of climate finance in the Global South, arguing that current mechanisms often prioritize mitigation over adaptation and corporate profit over local needs. Through case studies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, it highlights systemic issues including the 'greenwashing' of industrial activities, the marginalization of indigenous land rights, and a lack of transparency in fund disbursement. The authors advocate for a normative framework based on democratic governance, downward accountability to vulnerable communities, and the separation of public and private funding sources to ensure climate finance addresses actual developmental and environmental needs.

China is transitioning from top-down command-and-control energy policies to market-based instruments, aiming for a national carbon trading system by 2016. While the country has been a global leader in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), its domestic market remains in a research-and-development stage. Current efforts focus on seven regional pilots and potential sector-based schemes for power and buildings. Significant hurdles remain, including the lack of reliable baseline emission data, the absence of a mature free-market economy, and the need for a legal infrastructure to manage permit allocation and verification.

The report assesses China's ambition to launch a national carbon trading system by 2015, noting that while the government is determined to move away from inefficient top-down administrative measures, a functional domestic market does not yet exist beyond the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). It highlights the initiation of seven regional pilots (Beijing, Chongqing, Guangdong, Hunan, Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Tianjin) as critical experiments that will determine the future of Chinese climate policy. The authors identify significant hurdles, including a lack of reliable emission data, the absence of a mature free-market economy, and the need for robust legal frameworks for monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV).

The document assesses the impact of large-scale power projects on the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), noting that these projects are expected to generate nearly 70% of total CERs between 2013 and 2020. It argues that additionality for these projects is difficult to demonstrate, potentially leading to a global increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The authors propose phasing out these projects to stabilize the carbon market and shifting support toward national policies like feed-in tariffs and carbon taxes.

The letter argues that CDM coal power projects are non-additional, generate artificial carbon credits, and lock in billions of tons of CO2 while causing health and ecosystem damage. It references a CDM Executive Board suspension and an independent SEI study to support the claim that revised methodologies cannot ensure real and measurable emission reductions, calling for a formal CMP decision at COP-17 to exclude these projects.

The report examines the role of the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) as a corporate lobby group that promotes carbon trading and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to serve the interests of energy and mining companies. It highlights the 'revolving door' between the UK government and IETA leadership, specifically regarding Henry Derwent. The document argues that IETA's influence at UN climate conferences—where it often maintains the largest NGO delegation—promotes low-cost market options that allow developed nations to avoid deep domestic emission cuts, thereby delaying effective climate action.

The document examines the role of the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) as a business lobby group within UN climate talks. It details IETA's efforts to scale up carbon trading and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) despite evidence of market failure and environmental inefficiency. The report also highlights the 'revolving door' between government officials and IETA leadership and the group's ability to maintain a massive presence at COP conferences to influence policy in favor of private sector interests.

The document examines the relationship between Sasol and the South African government, arguing that the company uses its position within the 'minerals-energy complex' to capture decision-making. It details Sasol's role in promoting carbon-intensive technologies like coal-to-liquid (CTL) and gas-to-liquids (GTL), its lobbying for carbon capture and storage (CCS), and its efforts to avoid legally binding global climate targets while positioning itself as an environmental leader.

The document examines Sasol, a global leader in coal-to-liquid (CTL) technology, and its systemic influence over South African energy policy. It details how Sasol's integration into the 'minerals and energy complex' (MEC) and its presence in official government delegations to UN climate negotiations allow it to promote 'false solutions' like carbon capture and storage (CCS) while opposing legally binding climate agreements. The report also highlights Sasol's expansion into shale gas in Canada and South Africa, and its role as a major emitter of greenhouse gases.

The policy note argues that revisions to the ACM0013 methodology can only partially address the issues surrounding CDM coal power projects. It identifies three fundamental challenges: a low signal-to-noise ratio in efficiency data, the ineffectiveness of additionality assessments for multi-billion-dollar projects, and the contradiction of using climate finance to lock in long-lived, emissions-intensive infrastructure. The authors conclude that these combined factors likely defy easy resolution through methodology revisions alone.

The document analyzes the risks associated with hydropower projects under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), noting that hydropower represents 30% of all registered CDM carbon offset projects as of September 2011. It argues that without effective criteria for additionality and sustainability, the CDM risks issuing credits for 'business-as-usual' projects and shifting mitigation costs to poor communities in the South. The study specifically focuses on China and India, which together hold 78% of registered hydropower CDM projects, as well as Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and the EU's application of World Commission on Dams (WCD) guidelines for projects selling credits into the European Emissions Trading Scheme.

A coalition of 109 civil society organisations calls for a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and the closure of carbon market loopholes. The letter demands that market-based mechanisms be tied to binding targets and proposes specific reforms to the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), including human rights safeguards, a robust appeals procedure, and the exclusion of non-additional projects and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).

The report identifies a significant gap in the ability to measure the effectiveness of climate finance, noting that current tools are often project-based, incompatible, and lack real-time evaluation capabilities. It argues that effectiveness is enhanced when funding is aligned with national priorities, promotes transformative effects, and utilizes results-based approaches. The authors recommend the development of standardized 'climate effectiveness' metrics, robust ex ante and ex post abatement estimates, and increased transparency to avoid the risks of fragmentation and 'crowding-out' of private investment. The analysis draws on lessons from development aid (Paris-Accra principles), international financial institutions (IFIs), and market-based instruments like the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The CDM Executive Board's 64th meeting addressed the establishment of a high-level policy dialogue to review CDM experience for the post-2012 period and considered a 'risk-based-approach' to manage a surge in project registrations. Key discussions included proposals to tighten additionality testing for large-scale projects, the development of new transparency standards (PS, VVS, and PCP), and the establishment of liability rules for excess Certified Emission Reduction (CER) issuance resulting from fraud or negligence.