Search Climate Insights Directory

The document is an open letter addressed to ministers and UNFCCC representatives during COP-19. Signed by 33 civil society networks and individuals from 87 countries, it argues that carbon markets must not compromise the ambition of climate mitigation efforts. The authors call for a comprehensive climate agreement by 2015, specifically demanding the rejection of pilot phase trading under the Diversified Framework Approach (FVA), the removal of non-additional projects and coal power from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and the establishment of international verification to prevent double counting.

The letter expresses concern that 555 million carbon offset credits were surrendered into the EU ETS between 2008 and 2011, costing an estimated €5.9bn. The signatories argue that these offsets stifle domestic action, support business-as-usual coal and large hydro projects in the CDM, and allow for 'hot-air laundering' through Track 1 Joint Implementation, thereby threatening the environmental integrity of EU climate policies.

An analysis of PoA 10471, a cookstove project in Myanmar transitioning to the Article 6.4 mechanism, indicates that the project is likely to issue 7.2 times more credits than justified based on literature-based adjustments. The analysis, applying the Gill-Wiehl (2024) methodology, identifies several factors contributing to this over-crediting, with 'stacking' (2.63x) and 'usage' (1.96x) being the most significant drivers across both analyzed batches of component project activities.

The analysis finds that PoA 10415 is likely to issue 26.33 times more credits than it should have across monitoring periods 5, 6, and 7. This over-crediting is driven by multiple factors, with the fraction of non-renewable biomass (fNRB) contributing a factor of 2.94 and fuel stacking contributing 2.19. The project, based in Myanmar, is transitioning from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to the Article 6.4 mechanism of the Paris Agreement.

Friends of the Earth International calls for a transition away from a neoliberal economic model and the rejection of market-based climate solutions. The report emphasizes the moral and legal obligation of rich nations to lead emission cuts and provide public funding for adaptation and mitigation in the Global South, while warning against the risks of carbon markets and the 'Green Economy' framework if it ignores social justice.

The report advocates for climate justice, asserting that wealthy nations bear a historical responsibility for emissions and must provide financial and technological support to developing regions. It critiques market-based mechanisms like carbon credits and biofuels, labeling them as 'false solutions' that protect corporate profits while harming local communities and ecosystems. The text provides specific examples of climate impacts in Nigeria, Kiribati, and the Himalayas, and proposes a transition for Europe toward a low-carbon society based on drastic emission reductions and lifestyle changes.

The briefing by Friends of the Earth International critiques carbon trading and offsetting, specifically the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), as mechanisms that lock in fossil fuel dependency and facilitate human rights abuses. It warns that proposed expansions at COP 17—including sectoral crediting, soil carbon markets, and the inclusion of carbon capture and storage (CCS)—will further undermine global climate goals. The author advocates for a systemic transition to renewable energy and the provision of public, additional climate finance instead of market-based mechanisms.

The document critiques the EU-ETS for its failure to deliver necessary CO2 cuts due to over-allocation of permits, price volatility, and the use of offsetting. It argues that the system has become a profit-making tool for industry while increasing energy costs for consumers. Friends of the Earth Europe proposes replacing or supplementing the EU-ETS with binding national climate laws, mandatory energy savings targets, higher renewable energy goals, and a shift toward CO2-based taxation and direct public financing for emissions reductions.

The document critiques carbon markets, specifically 'cap and trade' and 'carbon offsetting', as mechanisms that allow major polluters to avoid reducing emissions at the source. It highlights the failure of the EU ETS and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), noting that global emissions continue to rise. The briefing emphasizes the severe impacts on indigenous peoples and local communities, citing REDD as a driver of land grabbing and forced displacement. It specifically warns against the implementation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which could institutionalize these markets, and calls for a transition to agroecology and a just energy transition instead.

The document critiques carbon emission markets, including 'cap and trade' and 'offsetting' mechanisms, as ineffective tools for climate action. It asserts that these systems allow historical polluters to avoid reducing emissions at the source while causing human rights abuses and 'climate colonialism' in the Global South. The briefing specifically warns against the adoption of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement at COP25, arguing that it would institutionalize these flawed mechanisms and prioritize corporate interests over climate justice.

The GCF Initial Investment Framework establishes the rules and targets for the fund's first resource mobilization period. It defines a balanced portfolio approach between mitigation and adaptation, sets specific targets for vulnerable countries and the private sector, and provides a six-criterion framework for assessing project proposals.

The document outlines the technical requirements and eligible sectors for urban projects seeking funding through the Green Climate Fund's Simplified Approval Process (SAP). It defines eligible 'secondary cities' as those with populations between 1 and 3 million inhabitants and identifies key sectors for intervention, including energy decarbonization, building efficiency, mobility, and waste management. The guide emphasizes a multisectoral, integrated approach to achieve a 'paradigm shift' away from carbon-intensive urbanization, providing specific indicators for measuring impact and examples of activities that do and do not qualify for the SAP.

The document is a compilation of 20 submissions from NGOs, private companies, and international organizations responding to a GCF call for input. The contributors provide detailed suggestions on how the GCF should evaluate funding proposals, with a strong emphasis on distinguishing between mitigation and adaptation. Key themes include the need for gender-sensitive indicators, the use of existing Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) methodologies to avoid 're-inventing' metrics, and the importance of prioritizing the most vulnerable populations and least developed countries (LDCs). Several submissions argue against using co-financing or leverage ratios as primary success metrics for adaptation, suggesting instead a focus on community-based adaptation and distributive justice.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) has introduced a pilot scheme to reduce the time and effort required for approving small-scale projects. To be eligible, projects must have transformative potential, request no more than 10 million USD, and have minimal to no environmental and social risks. The scheme utilizes simplified Concept Notes and Funding Proposals, with a specific goal that direct access entities comprise at least half of the approved projects. Projects with known 'risk factors'—such as those affecting indigenous peoples or critical infrastructure—are excluded regardless of their scale.

The document outlines a detailed framework for Accredited Entities to develop funding proposals for the Green Climate Fund. It specifies the sub-criteria and indicative assessment factors across six main investment criteria: Impact Potential, Paradigm Shift Potential, Sustainable Development Potential, Recipient Needs, National Ownership, and Efficiency and Effectiveness. These factors include quantitative metrics, such as tonnes of CO2 equivalent reduced and the number of beneficiaries, as well as qualitative assessments regarding innovation, gender equality, and institutional capacity.

The GCF pilot scheme simplifies the funding process for small-scale projects (up to $10 million) with minimal environmental and social risks. It introduces a streamlined application process involving a simplified concept note and funding proposal, targeting accredited entities with a goal that at least 50% of approved projects come from directly supported entities. Projects involving high-risk factors, such as indigenous people's rights or critical biodiversity areas, are ineligible.

The Mexican government, via the Instituto Nacional de Ecología, proposes three primary research lines for the IAI: integrated assessments of climate variability and its impacts on health, agriculture, tourism, and ecosystems; the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in the energy and forestry sectors; and the study of co-benefits from reducing local and global emissions on human health and urban ecosystems.

The IISD Climate Change and Energy Team provides research, policy recommendations, and capacity building to help governments, corporations, and communities transition to low-carbon societies and adapt to climate change. The team focuses on the Kyoto Mechanisms, carbon markets, and the development of a post-Kyoto climate regime, while maintaining the Institute's status as a carbon-neutral organization.

The transportation sector accounts for approximately 25% of global CO2 emissions and is the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Chile. A joint project by IISD, CC&D, and CCAP is investigating the application of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to Chilean transport, focusing on technology and demand-side solutions. The project utilizes three case studies: bicycle infrastructure, bus technology switching (e.g., diesel to hybrid electric) in Santiago, and location efficiency through transit-oriented development. The initiative aims to address CDM challenges such as project baselines, additionality, and the potential for sector-wide initiatives to attract funding and technology transfer.

The paper examines four regime options for a post-2012 climate framework: maintaining targets with flexibility mechanisms (broadening the CDM scope), differentiating developing country eligibility, implementing an expanded CDM (sectoral/NAMA approaches), and establishing a fund-based mechanism. It analyzes how these options affect the 'development dividend' across three dimensions: quality (sustainable development benefits), quantity (volume of Certified Emission Reductions), and regional distribution (investment in least developed countries). The authors conclude that while a fund-based mechanism best addresses quality and equity, it may struggle to match the investment volumes of private-sector market mechanisms. Conversely, expanding the CDM scope could flood the market with cheap credits, potentially crashing prices unless accompanied by ambitious emission reduction targets in developed nations.