Search Climate Insights Directory

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 document outlines how the 2021-2027 EU budget can support climate targets by prioritising zero-emission investments in the Connecting Europe Facility and European Regional Development Fund, ensuring 100% of ETS auctioning revenues used as Own Resources are invested in climate projects, and revising the European Tax Directive to reflect the climate impact of transport fuels.

The author contends that Horizon Europe, the EU's primary research and innovation financing tool for 2021-2027, requires a higher budget and stricter climate-proofing to support the transition to a carbon-neutral economy. Key recommendations include increasing the climate-spending target to at least 40%, explicitly excluding funding for fossil fuel projects, raising the total budget to €120 billion, and creating stronger synergies with the Innovation Fund to bridge the gap between research and market deployment.

An open letter from a coalition of climate and energy organisations calling for a more ambitious budget allocation for Horizon Europe's Cluster 4 to support the transition to a net-zero economy by 2050 and meet the targets of the Clean Energy Package.

Carbon Market Watch argues that Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement must be designed as a set of mandatory rules for all credit transfers to avoid undermining climate ambition. The brief recommends that Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (ITMOs) be limited to project-based emission reductions, excluding sector-based approaches and Emissions Trading System (ETS) allowances. To prevent double counting, the author advocates for corresponding adjustments at the first point of transfer and the creation of a publicly accessible international transaction log covering both UNFCCC and non-UNFCCC mechanisms.

The document argues for a fundamental shift from 'zero-sum offsetting' to a 'results based climate finance' (RBCF) model for the Article 6.4 mechanism. It recommends strict environmental integrity criteria, including a partial cancellation rate for credits and the exclusion of emission removals. To prevent the carry-over of failures from the Kyoto Protocol, it proposes a full re-assessment of existing Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects and prohibits the use of pre-2020 units for post-2020 targets. The brief also emphasizes the need for independent governance, a formal grievance mechanism to protect human rights, and mandatory local stakeholder consultations.

The document emphasizes that National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) are essential tools for EU Member States to transition to net-zero emission societies and meet Paris Agreement commitments. It argues that for these plans to be successful, they must exceed minimum EU ambition levels and be developed through active, multi-stakeholder dialogue involving civil society, academia, and the general public. The author notes a significant lack of transparency and timeliness in the submission of draft plans, with only Sweden having published its draft by August 2018, warning that many other states may treat the process as a "check-the-box" exercise to meet the December 2018 deadline.

A group of European NGOs expresses deep concern over the diminishing opportunities for civil society to engage with policymakers on aviation climate change. They argue that existing forums, such as the ECAC Environmental Forum, are ineffective and lack constructive dialogue, citing specific instances where NGO participation was declined or ignored. The authors call for a dedicated forum for EU policy discussion involving only European industry and environmental stakeholders to address urgent challenges including decarbonisation strategies, CORSIA participation, and the potential return of supersonic aircraft.

The report concludes that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) largely failed its objectives of producing high-quality, additional emission reductions and promoting sustainable development. It highlights systemic issues such as a lack of environmental integrity, perverse incentives for pollutant production, and the absence of social safeguards. Through four case studies in Uganda, India, Chile, and Guatemala, the document demonstrates how CDM projects led to land grabs, pollution, and the violation of indigenous and community rights. It recommends that post-2020 climate targets should not use CDM credits and that future mechanisms, such as the Sustainable Development Mechanism under the Paris Agreement, must incorporate binding stakeholder consultations and independent grievance mechanisms.

A joint letter from environmental NGOs argues that the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) is environmentally weak and inconsistent with the Paris Agreement. The authors demand that the EU maintain the more ambitious EU ETS for aviation and refrain from committing to CORSIA's voluntary phases until the legal review of the ETS Directive is finished.

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.

Carbon Market Watch advocates for a single mechanism under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement to replace Kyoto Protocol mechanisms and prevent the use of CDM credits post-2020. To ensure the aviation sector's use of offsets does not hinder global mitigation, the organization proposes a ratchet mechanism on NDC scope, rules to prevent double counting via corresponding adjustments, and a 50% discount rate on offset credits. Additionally, it recommends establishing detailed rules for local stakeholder consultations and a grievance mechanism to protect communities from project-related adverse impacts.

The document proposes replacing traditional carbon offsetting with a results-based climate finance (RBCF) system under a unified Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM). It argues that while the aviation sector currently relies on offsets via CORSIA, this should be a transitory arrangement phased out by 2030 through a 'ratchet mechanism' on Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) scope. To ensure environmental integrity and avoid double counting, the author recommends a 50% discount rate on offsets, mandatory corresponding adjustments by host countries, and a transparent international registry. Additionally, the SDM should incorporate stakeholder consultation rules, grievance mechanisms, and restrictions on harmful technologies like coal to foster genuine sustainable development.

Carbon Market Watch advocates for a more holistic approach to the EU's sustainable finance framework, arguing that the current 'environmental taxonomy' lacks sufficient granularity and expert input regarding human rights. The letter recommends expanding minimum safeguards beyond ILO conventions to include the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and UN Guiding Principles, establishing a formal group of human rights experts to advise the Technical Expert Group, and committing to the development of a dedicated 'social taxonomy'.

The document critiques the use of carbon offsetting within carbon pricing schemes, asserting that it allows entities to avoid genuine emission reductions. It highlights that while the EU has excluded international offsets for post-2020 domestic targets, Canada and China continue to support or allow them. The author specifically warns that the International Civil Aviation Organisation's (ICAO) planned sector-wide offsetting scheme risks using low-quality credits to bypass the polluter pays principle. Referencing a European Commission study, the text claims only 2% of UN Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects clearly reduce emissions.

The document criticizes G7 nations for continuing to provide approximately $100 billion annually in fossil fuel subsidies despite commitments to phase them out since 2009. It highlights the contradiction between these subsidies and the goals of the Paris Agreement and carbon pricing, specifically citing Canada's recent investment in oil pipeline nationalization to increase tar sand exports.

Carbon Market Watch outlines critical issues facing the development of the Paris Agreement rulebook, specifically regarding carbon markets. The author emphasizes the need to prevent double counting between the UNFCCC and CORSIA, ensure additionality by requiring reductions to exceed national pledges, and protect indigenous rights through mandatory consultations. Furthermore, it warns against the trading of 'hot air' under cooperative approaches and advocates for the Sustainable Development Mechanism to function as a results-based finance scheme rather than an offsetting tool.

Carbon Market Watch warns that the development of new supersonic business jets by aviation entrepreneurs and NASA requires new environmental certification for noise and CO2 emissions. The letter argues that these aircraft must meet existing and future subsonic standards to prevent environmental deterioration and uphold the Paris Agreement.

The briefing argues that the new international market regime under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement must move away from the concept of offsetting and instead utilize results-based climate finance. It emphasizes that the Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM) should learn from the failures of the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) to ensure environmental integrity, sustainable development, and the protection of human rights.

The document argues that the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), designed to offset CO2 emissions increases above 2020 levels, requires clear guidance under the Paris Agreement. It emphasizes the need for rules to prevent double counting of UNFCCC units, ensure transparent communication of aviation sector progress, and improve public access to information.