Search Climate Insights Directory

The document outlines five primary concerns regarding Article 6 of the Paris Agreement: the lack of buyer demand compared to sellers, the prevalence of unregulated private sector greenwashing, the oversupply of low-quality credits, the struggle to find high-integrity removal credits, and the risk of legacy credits from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) undermining new climate targets.

The briefing outlines five critical areas for success at COP26: increasing the ambition of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), mobilizing international climate finance for developing nations, prioritizing global climate adaptation, finalizing rules for international carbon markets under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, and aligning private investments with climate goals through standardized financial reporting.

The document alleges that BP knew about the devastating consequences of fossil fuels as early as 1991 but engaged in a campaign of deception to protect profits. It highlights the contrast between BP's 'Beyond Petroleum' branding and its actual capital expenditures, noting that the company spent $12 billion on oil and gas in 2002 compared to $45 million in solar. The briefing also criticizes BP for pioneering the 'carbon footprint' concept to shift responsibility to consumers and for implementing a 'net zero' ambition that excludes an estimated 46% of the carbon it extracts, including joint ventures with Rosneft.

The Center for Climate Integrity asserts that the American Petroleum Institute (API) spent decades coordinating a campaign of deception regarding the dangers of fossil fuels despite early internal research predicting catastrophic climate events. The document claims API has evolved from outright denial to 'greenwashing' and continues to lobby against climate legislation and federal leasing moratoriums while providing political cover for its member companies.

The Center for Climate Integrity presents evidence that Chevron and its predecessors were aware of the catastrophic effects of fossil fuels as early as 1980 but funded campaigns to discredit climate science and sow public uncertainty. The document highlights a contradiction between Chevron's public claims of leadership in clean energy and its actual investment patterns, noting that only 0.2 percent of annual capital expenditure was spent on low-carbon energy between 2010 and 2018. Additionally, it points to patents filed by Chevron and Texaco in 1974 for drilling equipment designed for warming Arctic conditions, suggesting the company prepared for the physical impacts of climate change while publicly denying them.

The Center for Climate Integrity asserts that the Chamber of Commerce has known about the dangers of fossil fuels since the 1980s but spent decades sowing doubt about climate science. The statement highlights the Chamber's role in the Global Climate Coalition, its lobbying efforts to weaken EPA regulations, and its financial support for politicians who oppose climate action, including funding a study used to justify the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.

Carbon Market Watch argues that environmental integrity under Article 6 requires the mandatory application of corresponding adjustments to all mitigation activities to prevent double counting. The briefing strongly opposes the carry-over of pre-2020 Kyoto Protocol units, asserting they would flood the market with up to 4 billion "junk credits" and increase global emissions. Additionally, it advocates for a share of proceeds (SOP) for adaptation that combines monetary and in-kind contributions, recommending that this levy apply to both Article 6.2 and 6.4 mechanisms to ensure stable finance for developing countries.

Carbon Market Watch asserts that Article 6 of the Paris Agreement must move beyond zero-sum offsetting to achieve an overall mitigation in global emissions (OMGE). The author critiques two proposed options—relying on market forces and using conservative baselines—as insufficient. Instead, the document advocates for the automatic partial cancellation of credits, arguing that this mechanism ensures net atmospheric benefits and can increase carbon market prices and project owner profits.

The document explains that human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, are the main drivers of global warming, which has seen average global temperatures rise by about one degree Celsius since 1880. It details the resulting environmental impacts, such as rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and increased frequency of extreme weather events, while highlighting the specific vulnerability of the United States to billion-dollar disasters. The text outlines mitigation and adaptation strategies, including the transition to renewable energy and energy efficiency, and discusses the role of international agreements like the Paris Agreement and the influence of climate finance in supporting these transitions.

The document explains that human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, have increased average global temperatures by approximately one degree Celsius since 1880. It details the resulting impacts, including rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and more severe extreme weather events. The text outlines strategies for mitigation and adaptation, discusses the role of renewable energy and energy efficiency, and describes the efforts of the United States, corporations, and the United Nations to address the crisis.

The document traces the history of international climate governance, highlighting the shift from the 'top-down' Kyoto Protocol to the 'bottom-up' Paris Agreement. It analyzes the central tension between ensuring universal participation and maintaining the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR). While the Paris Agreement achieved universality by allowing self-differentiation through Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), the brief notes that current collective pledges are insufficient to limit warming to 1.5°C or 2°C, and that the regime's success depends on the ambition of major emitters.

The report traces the shift in international climate policy from the 'top-down' prescriptive approach of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which targeted developed nations, to the 'bottom-up' participatory model of the 2015 Paris Agreement. It highlights the central role of the 'common but differentiated responsibilities' (CBDR) principle and argues that while the Paris Agreement achieved universal participation, current national commitments remain insufficient to limit global warming to 1.5°C or 2°C.

The document analyzes the potential volume of CERs eligible for transition to NDCs based on different restriction criteria. It finds that the total supply potential for reductions in or after 2013 exceeds 4 billion CERs without restrictions, but this figure drops significantly depending on whether registration dates or crediting period start dates are used as cut-offs.

The author argues that the disproportionate fame of Greta Thunberg, the "Greta effect", is a symptom of a system that privileges white activists from the Global North while marginalising activists of colour. This bias extends from media coverage—where people of colour are often stereotyped as victims or erased entirely—to environmental policymaking, where the exclusion of marginalised voices leads to projects that harm indigenous and minority communities. The document advocates for an intersectional approach to climate action to address these power imbalances and ensure that those most affected by climate change can own their narratives and influence policy.

The document distinguishes between cap-and-trade systems and offsetting mechanisms, arguing that the latter are often a zero-sum game incompatible with net-zero goals. It critiques the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) for lack of additionality and local safeguards, and warns that Article 6 of the Paris Agreement risks repeating these failures through 'hot air' trading and double counting. The guide also assesses the limitations of the CORSIA aviation scheme and the voluntary carbon market, ultimately advocating for a shift from offsetting toward direct climate finance for the zero-carbon transition.

The document distinguishes between cap-and-trade systems (ETS) and offsetting mechanisms, arguing that the latter often fail to provide real climate benefits. It critiques the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) for lack of additionality and local safeguards, and warns that Article 6 of the Paris Agreement must avoid 'hot air' and double counting. It also examines the limitations of CORSIA for aviation and the integrity issues surrounding REDD+ and voluntary markets, ultimately advocating for a shift from offsetting toward direct climate action financing.

The document explains the fundamental differences between emissions trading systems and offsetting mechanisms, evaluates the failures of the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation, and details the challenges facing the implementation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. It specifically addresses risks such as 'hot air' trading, double counting, and the lack of environmental integrity in forest-based offsets (REDD+), while also examining the CORSIA aviation offsetting scheme and the voluntary carbon market.

The document explains the difference between cap-and-trade systems and offsetting mechanisms, detailing the failures of the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the risks associated with the Paris Agreement's Article 6. It highlights issues such as 'hot air' credits, double counting, and the lack of local safeguards. It also assesses the CORSIA aviation scheme and the voluntary carbon market, arguing that the global community must move beyond offsetting toward direct climate finance to achieve net-zero emissions.

The author contends that the military-industrial complex operates under a 'regime of exception' that allows it to evade environmental regulations and carbon accounting, specifically citing exemptions in the Kyoto Protocol. The text highlights the contradiction of using militarization to address climate-induced security threats while the military itself remains a massive emitter of greenhouse gases. It calls for a 'military degrowth' approach, including a moratorium on the arms race, to ensure that security strategies are compatible with the goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.

The author contends that the military-industrial complex operates with a level of impunity that allows it to bypass environmental regulations and the polluter-pays principle. While the military frames climate change as a 'threat multiplier' to justify budget increases, the document asserts that militarisation is fundamentally incompatible with a decarbonised economy. It calls for a 'manifesto for military degrowth,' including a moratorium on arms races and the suspension of energy-intensive 'force projection' to mitigate climatic disruption.