Search Climate Insights Directory

The document reviews the state of adaptation finance as of early 2020, highlighting the Adaptation Committee's projections of rising costs and the Adaptation Fund's operational milestones. It addresses the difficulty of tracking adaptation flows, noting that while finance increased by 35% in 2017-2018, it represents only 5% of tracked climate finance. The brief also contrasts the massive business opportunities in adaptation solutions with the urgent needs of vulnerable populations, arguing that adaptation requires a rethinking of production and equity.

The case of Urgenda Foundation v The State of the Netherlands resulted in a Supreme Court ruling on 20 December 2019, upholding a lower court's order for the Dutch government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% relative to 1990 levels by the end of 2020. The courts determined that the State has a positive obligation under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to take concrete actions against climate change to prevent risks to the right to life and family life. The ruling established that such mandates do not violate the separation of powers, as the government retains discretion over the methods used to achieve the target. This judgment has since influenced climate litigation in other jurisdictions, including Ireland and Australia.

The failure to establish rules for international carbon markets at COP 25 prevented the adoption of loopholes and double-counting but shifted the responsibility for environmental integrity to individual countries. This creates a risk of a 'wild west' scenario where low-ambition countries may trade 'junk credits' from the Kyoto Protocol era. While the San Jose Principles and Article 77d of the transparency framework offer some paths toward integrity and reporting, the lack of a global agreement leaves carbon markets potentially undermining overall climate action.

The document outlines how the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) integrates climate change into its monitoring of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). It details the Committee's use of General Comments, Joint Statements, and State reporting procedures to hold States accountable for climate-related impacts on rights such as health, food, and water. Key findings emphasize that States must implement emissions cuts reflecting the "highest possible ambition," regulate private actors to prevent climate harm, and ensure that high-income States provide climate finance to developing nations beyond existing official development assistance. The briefing also analyzes trends in the Committee's Concluding Observations from 2008 to 2019, noting a higher frequency of climate-related recommendations for developed countries and a strong focus on mitigation, adaptation, and international cooperation.

The 2019 Chile/Madrid Climate Change Conference, the longest in UNFCCC history, failed to reach a consensus on the operationalization of Article 6 regarding market and non-market mechanisms. While the conference achieved progress on the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage and the Lima Work Programme on Gender, it was marked by significant disconnects between scientific demands for ambition and the limitations of multilateral negotiations. Key unresolved issues, including long-term climate finance and common time frames for NDCs, were deferred to future sessions under Rule 16.

Article 6 of the Paris Agreement establishes frameworks for international carbon markets, allowing countries to trade emissions reductions to meet their nationally determined contributions (NDCs). While it offers potential cost savings of $250 billion per year by 2030 and can catalyze private finance, poor design risks increasing global emissions through double-counting and a lack of additionality. Key points of contention for negotiators include the application of 'corresponding adjustments' to prevent double-counting, the implementation of 'overall mitigation in global emissions' (OMGE), the 'share of proceeds' for the Adaptation Fund, and the potential carryover of up to 4 billion pre-2020 Kyoto Protocol units.

Carbon Market Watch argues that any agreement on Article 6 must prioritize environmental integrity over expediency, specifically calling for the elimination of double counting through corresponding adjustments and the prevention of 'hot air' credits. The briefing advocates for a partial cancellation rate for all credits to achieve an overall mitigation in global emissions (OMGE) and the total exclusion of pre-2020 Kyoto Protocol units. Additionally, it emphasizes the need for independent grievance mechanisms and mandatory local stakeholder consultations to address past failures in social and environmental safeguards.

The briefing warns that up to 40 billion carbon credits lacking environmental integrity could undermine the Paris Agreement. These include legacy units from the Kyoto Protocol's CDM, JI, and IET mechanisms, as well as projected 'hot air' from NDCs set above business-as-usual levels. The author advocates for strict rules on the timing of reductions, the transferability of credits from weak targets, and the use of old credits to ensure the 1.5°C goal is not compromised.

The document details the first climate change court case in South Africa, where the High Court in Pretoria ruled that the decision to authorise the 1200MW Thabametsi coal-fired power station was irrational and unreasonable because it lacked a prior climate impact assessment. The court affirmed that climate change poses a substantial risk to sustainable development and intergenerational justice. Despite the court's order for the Minister to reconsider the appeal based on a climate change impact assessment, the Minister upheld the authorisation, leading to further legal challenges and the withdrawal of funding by three commercial banks in January 2019.

The Land and Environment Court of New South Wales dismissed an appeal by Gloucester Resources Limited, upholding the Minister for Planning's refusal to grant consent for an open cut coal mine. The court determined that the project's estimated 38 million tonnes of carbon emissions were contrary to the public interest and the goals of the Paris Agreement. Notably, the court rejected the argument that the project's emissions were too small to be significant globally, asserting that climate change must be addressed through cumulative local actions.

The document calls for COP-25 to prioritize human rights, gender equality, and increased national ambition in climate commitments, while warning against the use of carbon offsets and the marginalization of Global South participants due to the conference's relocation from Santiago to Madrid.

The briefing argues that Article 6 must be designed to ensure overall emission reductions rather than mere shifting of emissions. It warns against the use of pre-2020 Kyoto Protocol credits and the risk of double counting between national mitigation objectives (NDCs) and schemes like CORSIA. The document advocates for the automatic partial cancellation of credits to move beyond zero-sum offsetting and calls for independent grievance mechanisms to prevent human rights violations seen under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The document highlights the critical need for countries to reach an agreement on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement before COP25. It identifies four primary areas of contention: the transition of old Kyoto Protocol credits, the prevention of double counting through corresponding adjustments, the move away from offsetting logic toward true emission reductions, and the necessity of integrating social and environmental safeguards to protect human rights and support sustainable development.

The document presents a collection of 36 internal and public documents from 1963 to 2017, detailing how the oil industry—specifically Exxon, Shell, Mobil, and the American Petroleum Institute (API)—understood the link between fossil fuels and global warming decades ago. It argues that despite internal consensus on the potential for 'catastrophic' impacts, these companies pivoted in the late 1980s to a strategy of manufacturing doubt, funding denier groups, and misleading the public and policymakers to protect their business models.

The briefing argues that Article 6 of the Paris Agreement must implement strong accounting rules to prevent double counting of emission reductions, particularly between national mitigation objectives (NDCs) and the CORSIA aviation scheme. It advocates for phasing out 'pure offsetting' in favor of overall emission reductions and warns against the use of old Kyoto Protocol credits after 2020. Additionally, the document emphasizes the need for local stakeholder involvement and independent grievance mechanisms to prevent the human rights violations seen under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The document explains the greenhouse effect and the role of human activities in increasing radiative forcing, noting that global warming has reached approximately 1°C since pre-industrial times. It details the global emissions profile by sector and the projected risks associated with 1.5°C versus 2°C warming, emphasizing that the latter significantly increases risks to human health, food security, and biodiversity. The text outlines the evolution of international climate governance from the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol to the Paris Agreement and its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). To limit warming to 1.5°C, the document argues for a transformative shift in the energy mix by 2050, including a drastic reduction in fossil fuel consumption and a move toward renewable energy and carbon dioxide removal technologies.

The document argues that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) should be terminated by 2020 to prevent it from undermining the Paris Agreement. The authors claim the CDM encourages a 'zero-sum game' that hinders domestic climate action, has increased global emissions due to 'junk' credits, and has led to human rights violations and inequitable benefit distribution.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment argues that Canada's history of missing greenhouse gas reduction targets necessitates a legislated accountability framework. While acknowledging the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change (PCF) as a first step, the authors contend that a proposed $20 million 'Institute' for expert advice is insufficient because it lacks legal permanence and a mandate for government response. They propose five specific requirements: enshrining accountability in law, creating a public expert committee, implementing 5-year carbon budgets, focusing the committee's mandate on assessing government progress, and requiring the government to formally respond to committee reports. The document cites the United Kingdom's 2008 Climate Change Act as a successful model of such transparency and accountability.

The paper introduces a method to calculate maritime shipping emissions by combining shipping manifest cargo data with Automatic Identification System (AIS) vessel tracking data. It demonstrates this approach using 2014 Brazilian exports, finding that shipping these goods added 25.99 million tonnes of CO2 to Brazil's reported emissions.

Carbon Market Watch calls for the operationalization of rules for Article 6 that prioritize the avoidance of double counting, a clear end date for the transition from Kyoto Protocol mechanisms, and the implementation of robust human rights and social safeguards to prevent the adverse impacts seen under the Clean Development Mechanism.