Search Climate Insights Directory

The document critiques the use of temporary carbon storage as a climate solution, asserting that unless carbon is stored for significantly more than a century, it cannot physically offset the permanent impact of fossil fuel emissions. It argues that such schemes are often driven by economic interests seeking to avoid emission reductions and that they unfairly burden future generations with the risk of carbon release. The author calls for policymakers, particularly in the European Union, to prohibit temporary storage as carbon offsets and establish minimum durability requirements.

The report identifies critical methodological failures in Verra's REDD+ carbon credit system, specifically regarding overestimated baselines, underestimated leakages, inflated carbon accounting, and ignored permanence risks. It concludes that these credits do not represent real emission reductions and should not be used to offset fossil fuel emissions, recommending a shift from 'offsetting' to 'contribution' funding for forest conservation.

The report identifies critical methodological failures in REDD+ forestry projects certified by Verra, specifically regarding baselines, leakage, carbon accounting, permanence, and safeguards. It argues that project developers exploit methodological flexibility to inflate emission reductions, resulting in low-quality carbon credits that do not represent real climate benefits. The document concludes that REDD+ credits are not equivalent to emission reductions and should not be used to offset fossil fuel emissions.

The report identifies systemic failures in Verra's REDD+ methodologies, specifically regarding baseline inflation, underestimated leakage, exaggerated carbon accounting, and underestimated reversal risks. It argues that these flaws allow project developers to maximize credit issuance through 'convenience' selections rather than scientific accuracy. The document concludes that REDD+ credits do not represent real emission reductions and should not be used to offset fossil fuel emissions, recommending a shift toward 'contribution' claims and stricter, independent oversight.

Carbon Market Watch has filed a formal complaint with Verra based on research from the University of California (Berkeley) that identifies 'major deficiencies in project integrity and rigour' across several REDD+ projects. The document alleges that Verra and its validation/verification bodies (VVBs) failed to uphold standards, resulting in the issuance of carbon credits that are not 'environmentally sound'. Key failures cited include non-conservative forest carbon accounting, lack of transparency in allometric equations, inadequate community consultation, and the underestimation of natural reversal risks. The complainant calls for an internal investigation, a halt on credit issuance for the affected projects, and the cancellation of wrongfully issued credits.

The report finds that REDD+ projects under Verra's methodologies systematically over-credit their climate benefits due to inflated baselines, underestimated leakage, and exaggerated forest carbon stocks. It further argues that social safeguards are often treated as a 'check-box activity,' failing to protect vulnerable forest communities from displacement and rights violations. The authors conclude that REDD+ is ill-suited for generating carbon offsets and recommend a shift toward a contributions-based approach and rights-based safeguards.

The document evaluates four carbon credit rating agencies (BeZero, Calyx Global, Sylvera, and Renoster), finding that while their frameworks generally support higher market integrity, significant discrepancies exist in how they assess additionality, non-permanence, and leakage. These differences can lead to starkly contrasting ratings for the same project, potentially confusing buyers and risking the legitimization of low-quality credits. The brief recommends that agencies adopt a 100-year reversal risk period, incorporate safeguards into overall quality scores, and increase transparency of their frameworks. It further advises buyers to move away from 'carbon neutrality' claims and instead use ratings to understand the specific trade-offs and nuances of the credits they purchase.

The report evaluates the methodologies of four carbon credit rating agencies (BeZero, Calyx, Renoster, and Sylvera) to determine if they deliver on claims of increasing market transparency and integrity. Using the Carbon Credit Quality Initiative (CCQI) as a benchmark, the analysis finds that Calyx employs the most stringent approach, while BeZero and Sylvera are rated as adequate. Renoster's data-centric, algorithmic approach is deemed incomparable to the others. Key findings highlight significant differences in how agencies treat additionality as a limiting factor, the inclusion of leakage in overall scores, and the transparency of their rating justifications. The report recommends greater alignment with financial rating standards, mandatory inclusion of leakage in final scores, and increased public disclosure of project-specific frameworks.

The document evaluates the performance of BeZero, Calyx, Renoster, and Sylvera, noting that while their frameworks are generally well-conceived, stark differences in project assessments can create market confusion and risk legitimising low-quality credits. It provides specific recommendations for agencies to improve their handling of reversal risk, leakage, and additionality, while advising buyers to focus blame on low-scoring projects rather than the rating agencies themselves.

The report evaluates the methodologies of carbon credit rating agencies BeZero, Calyx, Renoster, and Sylvera, highlighting a systemic lack of standardised quality assessment in the carbon market. It notes that while these agencies aim to increase transparency and mitigate risk, their approaches vary significantly, particularly in the use of algorithmic analysis versus direct testing and the treatment of additionality and leakage.

The document argues against the use of Expected Emission Reductions (EER) and avoided emissions as metrics for transition finance, claiming they rely on subjective, non-conservative baselines and risk rewarding high polluters. It advocates for the use of Expected Cumulative Emissions (ECE) to monitor alignment with net-zero pathways and emphasizes that transition finance should not be used to support the fossil fuel sector, which the author asserts is making performative efforts to transition.

The report establishes a framework for assessing temporary carbon storage, asserting that because CO2 emissions have effectively permanent impacts, storage lasting only decades or a century cannot offset emissions without risking higher long-term temperatures. It argues that economic equivalence claims are irrelevant to the physical targets of the Paris Agreement and suggests a minimum storage requirement of 100 years based on the precautionary principle and current global emissions trajectories.

The report concludes that all analyzed policy frameworks are inadequate for the robust deployment of carbon dioxide removals (CDR). Most frameworks fail to establish a clear firewall between emissions reductions and removals, often treating them as interchangeable through offsetting mechanisms. Key deficiencies include the absence of legally binding, separate CDR targets, the lack of a robust definition of CDR that ensures long-term permanence, and insufficient monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems. The authors recommend that CDR be strictly defined as a secondary climate function to balance residual emissions, supported by dedicated legal targets and rigorous accounting to prevent 'mitigation deterrence'.

Carbon Market Watch argues that climate neutrality plans (CNPs) for high-emitting installations must be transparent, standardized, and subject to rigorous assessment criteria to prevent them from becoming a mere formality for receiving free emission allowances. The organization advocates for the mandatory use of a common electronic template to ensure comparability across Member States and calls for the public disclosure of these plans under the Aarhus Convention to ensure accountability for big polluters.

Carbon Market Watch argues that current carbon market mechanisms, such as buffer pools and insurance, are insufficient to guarantee the multi-century permanence required for carbon removals to credibly offset ongoing emissions. The organization recommends extending project proponent monitoring responsibilities to at least 100 years, implementing strict reversal notification timelines (within 30 days), and requiring the automatic cancellation of unused buffer credits. To address equity concerns, it suggests that liability for reversals should shift to acquiring Parties or be funded via top-off fees and a Secretariat-managed satellite monitoring system, rather than falling on host Parties, many of which are developing nations.

Carbon Market Watch (CMW) highlights that the two-week window for providing inputs to the Supervisory Body on removal activities is "extremely short" and overlaps with SB58, potentially leading to an underrepresentation of observer organisations. Instead of new inputs, CMW directs the Supervisory Body to five previous submissions made between May 2022 and April 2023 regarding removal activities and methodological requirements.

The document is an open letter from a coalition of environmental and consumer organizations calling on the European Parliament to vote for specific amendments (ENVI amendments 31, 33, 218-222) to the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) on July 11. The authors argue that victims of illegal industrial pollution currently lack harmonized rules to seek remedy in court. They propose that a causal link between IED violations and health damage should be presumed if sufficient evidence is provided, and that companies must disclose evidence held exclusively by them. The letter highlights that industrial air pollution in Europe cost between EUR 277 billion and EUR 433 billion in 2017 and asserts that a compensation right would incentivize legal compliance and protect fundamental rights to health and life.

Carbon Market Watch advocates for a legally binding EU target of over 90% gross emissions cuts by 2040 to achieve domestic net zero. The organization argues for 'turbo charging' the EU ETS by increasing linear reduction factors, phasing out free allowances by 2030 in favor of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), and keeping carbon removals strictly separate from the ETS to avoid offsetting and ensure deep decarbonization. It also calls for the expansion of the ETS to full scope for aviation and shipping and the use of auctioning revenues for transparent climate projects.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the Article 6.2 country-to-country carbon market lacks sufficient transparency and accountability. The organization calls for the 2023 Bonn intersessional conference to establish strict reporting requirements, eliminate the use of non-disclosure agreements for bilateral deals, and synchronize the authorization process to prevent double counting of emission reductions.

The document argues that the EU Innovation Fund's current overhaul risks funding projects with marginal abatement potential due to outdated benchmarks. It recommends updating reference points to target the highest emission-reduction potential, making resource saving a mandatory criterion for support, and prioritizing economy-wide scalability over local or sectoral scalability to ensure true sustainability.