Search Climate Insights Directory

The document evaluates EU countries' positions on the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR), which covers 60% of EU greenhouse gas emissions. Using a scoring system across five categories—starting point, land use loopholes, ETS surplus loopholes, governance, and ambition levels—it ranks Sweden as the leader and Poland as the lowest performer. The brief argues that most EU countries are pushing for loopholes that undermine the Paris Agreement, with the European Commission's own proposal scoring only 20 out of 100 points.

The EU Climate Leader Board ranks EU member states on their support for the Effort Sharing Regulation across five categories: starting point, ETS surplus loophole, land use loophole, governance, and ambition level. Sweden ranks highest with a score of 67, while Malta ranks lowest with a score of 2. The analysis concludes that no EU country is currently doing enough to make the regulation compatible with the Paris Agreement.

A coalition of civil society organizations requests that the Green Climate Fund (GCF) maintain its fossil fuel-free status by establishing a formal investment policy consistent with ESG standards and the Paris Agreement. The signatories argue that investing in high-carbon sectors poses systemic financial and reputational risks and call for the GCF to require any candidate for Permanent Trustee to commit to an ethical, fossil-free asset management strategy.

A coalition of 31 networks and organizations calls on EU Environment Ministers to reform the EU ETS by excluding coal investments from the Modernization Fund and article 10c, maintaining the 2013 base year for eligibility to prevent lignite plant subsidies in Greece, and establishing a Just Transition Fund.

The document warns that allowing forestry offsets to delay agricultural emission reductions under the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) will make meeting 2050 climate goals more expensive and require significantly steeper cuts after 2030.

An open letter from multiple organisations requesting a UN investigation into the Barro Blanco hydroelectric dam in Panama, citing unnotified reservoir flooding, lack of compensation for displaced families, and the risk of forceful evictions following a Supreme Court ruling.

The document argues that replacing the EU ETS with CORSIA for European flights would significantly reduce climate ambition and breach the Paris Agreement. It criticizes CORSIA for lacking legally binding status until 2027, relying solely on offsets, and lacking in-sector reduction requirements. The authors demand that the EU ETS cover all domestic and international flights from 2017 unless CORSIA is substantially strengthened in its targets, legal binding date, accounting rules, and in-sector reduction requirements.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the European Parliament failed to strengthen the 'polluter pays principle' by rejecting a carbon border tax and free permit phase-out for the cement sector. While the Parliament decided to include shipping in the EU ETS and strengthen aviation rules, it voted to maintain a 2.2% annual emissions cap reduction rate rather than increasing it to 2.4%.

The document advocates for a mechanism requiring cement and clinker importers to pay for their pollution to create a level playing field and end free allocation in the EU ETS. It argues that free allocation has hindered innovation, increased emissions by subsidizing high-carbon exports to Africa, and generated over €5 billion in windfall profits for the cement industry. The briefing asserts that an import inclusion scheme is WTO-compatible and beneficial for the industry, as it would incentivize the adoption of new technologies in a sector where European production is currently less efficient than in other global regions.

The letter argues that international frameworks for aviation and shipping emissions are insufficient to meet Paris Agreement goals. It specifically criticizes ICAO's CORSIA for relying on offsets and the IMO for delaying global CO2 measures. The authors call for the EU ETS to return to full-scope for aviation, include all EU-related shipping emissions in 2030 targets, and eliminate free allowances for both sectors to fund climate initiatives.

Carbon Market Watch outlines specific requirements for the implementation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, focusing on cooperative approaches, the Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM), and non-market mechanisms. The organization argues that to avoid a "race to the bottom," robust multilateral rules are needed to prevent double counting and perverse incentives. Key recommendations include limiting eligible activities to those within the scope of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), requiring host countries to certify that actions do not violate human rights, and designing the SDM as a tool for results-based finance rather than "zero sum offsetting."

Carbon Market Watch argues for the phase-out of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) by the end of the second Kyoto commitment period, recommending that project registration cease as of COP 24 in 2018. The organization advocates for the establishment of a CDM grievance and safeguard mechanism to protect human rights and the environment, alongside strengthened civil society participation in stakeholder consultations. It further calls for a CMP/CMA process to guide the transition to the Paris Agreement's Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM) and the implementation of measures to prevent double counting of credits used in ICAO's CORSIA scheme.

Carbon Market Watch argues for the phase-out of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) by the end of the second Kyoto commitment period, recommending that project registration cease by COP24 in 2018. The organization advocates for the establishment of a CDM grievance mechanism and institutional safeguards to protect human rights and the environment, noting that the CDM currently lacks the accountability mechanisms found in other international financial institutions. Additionally, it calls for strengthened civil society participation in stakeholder consultations and the implementation of measures to prevent double counting of credits used under ICAO's CORSIA scheme and nationally determined contributions.

The document argues that NAMAs provided a critical transition from project-based to sectoral mitigation for developing countries and should serve as a learning tool for NDCs. It recommends that NDCs improve upon NAMA limitations by establishing rigorous financial mechanisms, transparent sustainable development monitoring, and clear, inclusive rules for stakeholder engagement to drive transformational change.

Carbon Market Watch and Transport & Environment critique the EU's guidelines on Upstream Emission Reductions (UERs), stating they are too weak to force the oil industry to change practices due to loopholes regarding carbon offsets and double counting. While the Fuel Quality Directive requires a 6% carbon footprint reduction by 2020 compared to 2010, the authors argue that national governments must now make the guidelines legally binding and limit eligible savings to Clean Development Mechanism projects in Least Developed Countries to ensure transparency and additionality.

The statement emphasizes that ICAO's CORSIA must be aligned with the UNFCCC's Paris Agreement framework, specifically regarding transparency, accounting for Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), and the global stocktake, to ensure that carbon credits are not double-counted by 2018.

The statement warns that non-transparent land-use accounting in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) can allow countries to meet targets while carbon pollution increases. It highlights specific examples in Russia and New Zealand and advocates for separating land-use credits from other sectors to ensure the 1.5°C target is met through essential decarbonisation.

The report argues that the EU ETS's 'carbon leakage' rules have allowed heavy industry to generate over €25 billion in windfall profits from 2008 to 2015. It claims that free allocation of pollution permits has cost governments at least €143 billion in lost auctioning revenues, reduced incentives for efficiency, and lacks empirical evidence of actual carbon leakage. The document calls for phasing out free allocations and establishing a Just Transition Fund to support impacted communities.

A coalition of 31 environmental organisations calls for a meaningful carbon price and reformed funding mechanisms within the EU ETS revision to phase out fossil fuels and support a just transition in Europe.

The document analyzes the vague language of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which attempts to balance diverse party interests through the creation of the Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM) and frameworks for both market and non-market approaches. It argues that for carbon markets to support the 1.5°C warming limit, they must prioritize high environmental integrity and increased ambition.