Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that EU climate tools must be reformed to support a low-carbon transition in Central and Eastern Europe, specifically calling for a 55% emission reduction target by 2030 and the phase-out of fossil fuel and nuclear energy subsidies.

Carbon Market Watch provides a set of recommendations for the rules of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement to be discussed at COP22. The organization argues that carbon markets must increase global ambition by delivering actual emission reductions beyond NDC levels, ensure environmental integrity through a robust accounting framework to prevent double counting, and protect human rights and sustainable development through monitoring, stakeholder consultation, and grievance processes.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the ICAO's CORSIA scheme must be integrated into the Paris Agreement's transparency and reporting mechanisms. The author recommends that NDCs include sections on contributions outside the UNFCCC, that national inventories be adjusted to prevent double counting of offsets, and that aviation emissions and CORSIA progress be included in the global stocktake and synthesis reports.

The document argues that for carbon markets to support the 1.5°C goal, they must move beyond zero-sum offsetting toward net mitigation. It proposes rigorous ex-post accounting for internationally transferred mitigation outcomes (ITMOs) to avoid 'hot air' and double counting. For the Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM), it recommends excluding non-additional technologies via negative lists, abolishing the direct contractual link between project proponents and designated operational entities (DOEs) to ensure impartiality, and excluding temporary sinks like REDD and forestry credits due to leakage and permanence risks. Additionally, it calls for the SDM to integrate UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), establish robust social and environmental safeguards, and create a UN-level grievance process for affected communities.

The cement industry in 20 European countries generated €5 billion in windfall profits between 2008 and 2015 due to the EU ETS, which the document argues subsidises pollution and hinders decarbonisation. These profits were derived from surplus allowances (€2.7 billion), cost-pass through (€2.1 billion), and offsets (€0.1 billion), with the highest gains in Spain, Italy, and Germany. The brief identifies failures such as low carbon prices and benchmarks that incentivise high-carbon clinker production, noting that European production is less energy efficient than that of India. To drive decarbonisation, the author recommends ending free allocations, introducing 100% auctioning with benchmarked border levelling to prevent carbon leakage, and replacing clinker benchmarks with cement benchmarks.

Between 2008 and 2015, heavy industry in 20 European countries generated over €25 billion in windfall profits from the EU ETS. These profits were primarily driven by the free allocation of emission allowances intended to prevent "carbon leakage," a phenomenon the report argues is unsubstantiated by evidence. The most significant gains came from cost-pass through to customers (€16.8 billion), followed by the sale of surplus allowances (€7.5 billion) and the use of cheaper international offsets (€0.8 billion). The iron and steel, cement, refineries, and petrochemicals sectors were the primary beneficiaries. The report concludes that these subsidies reduce the incentive for industrial decarbonisation and deprive governments of an estimated €143 billion in potential auctioning revenues, recommending a phase-out of free allocations and the establishment of a Just Transition Fund.

The document argues that a robust appeals procedure for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is essential for protecting human rights, ensuring climate integrity, and promoting accountability. Carbon Market Watch recommends that the procedure allow both positive and negative appeals, be open to a broad definition of affected stakeholders beyond project proponents, and cover both procedural and substantive violations. It further suggests that the appeals body must be independent and accountable, and that a separate grievance mechanism is necessary to address adverse social and environmental impacts occurring during project implementation.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the CDM requires fundamental reform to address failures in human rights accountability, additionality testing, and sustainable development monitoring. Key recommendations include establishing a formal grievance mechanism, restricting technology eligibility to exclude fossil fuels, and introducing liability rules for Designated Operational Entities to prevent conflicts of interest.

Carbon Market Watch argues that LULUCF activities are currently unfit for market mechanisms due to data uncertainty, incomplete accounting, and risks of non-permanence. The organization recommends moving toward a land-based, net-net accounting approach using historical baselines rather than projected emissions. It further proposes that LULUCF sectors be managed through non-market measures under Article 6.8 of the Paris Agreement to better integrate adaptation and sustainable development goals, while calling for the exclusion of non-permanent activities from the CDM.

The document examines the role of offsetting in the aviation sector, specifically within the context of the International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) goal to limit net emissions growth to 2020 levels. It highlights the establishment of the Carbon Offset and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), noting that due to exemptions and non-participation by certain states, it is expected to cover only about three quarters of emissions above 2020 levels. The report aims to analyze the offsetting practices of over 30 air carriers to provide insights into industry trends and the quality of offsets used, which is critical given that cumulative demand for offsets through 2040 could reach nearly eight billion tonnes.

The document outlines the requirements for the new carbon market mechanism established by Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. It emphasizes that these markets must drive actual emission reductions beyond domestic action, avoid double-counting through robust accounting, and exclude fossil fuel investments. Furthermore, it calls for strong human rights safeguards and alignment with the UN's Sustainable Development Goals to avoid the failures associated with the Kyoto Protocol's flexible mechanisms.

A joint submission by 20 organizations arguing that the Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM) must avoid the systemic failures of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) by implementing strict human rights safeguards, ensuring a net decrease in global emissions, and establishing robust grievance and participation processes.

The document argues that the ICAO's CORSIA scheme is insufficient to achieve carbon neutral growth by 2020 or align aviation with the Paris Agreement's 1.5 degree warming limit. It highlights the need for further regional and national efforts to address aviation's climate impact and provides recommendations for maintaining European ambition.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the European Parliament's industry committee has failed to fix fundamental flaws in the EU ETS, specifically regarding the oversupply of pollution permits and the continued provision of free allowances to heavy industry. While the committee strengthened exclusions for future coal investments and permanently cancelled a small portion of surplus allowances, the organisation contends these measures are insufficient to drive a low-carbon transition or meet Paris Agreement commitments.

A coalition of 29 European organizations calls for more ambitious EU climate regulations, specifically targeting the 2030 Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) and the LULUCF regulation. The group advocates for a trajectory toward 95% emission cuts by 2050, the rejection of forestry offsets that undermine other sectors, and the mandatory accounting of wetlands to ensure the EU meets its Paris Agreement commitments to limit warming to 1.5°C.

The document details a two-day workshop held in October 2016 in Dakar, Senegal, involving over 25 participants from seven West African countries. It examines the implications of the Paris Agreement, specifically Article 6 and carbon markets, while highlighting the failures of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the challenges of accessing the Green Climate Fund. The workshop concluded with the 'Dakar Declaration,' which provides six specific recommendations for West African negotiators at COP22 to ensure the new sustainable development mechanism prioritises human rights, the least developed countries, and a shift from market-based offsets to climate finance.

The document discusses the transition from Kyoto Protocol carbon markets to the Paris Agreement's cooperative approaches, specifically the use of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes (ITMOs). It warns that without robust accounting and oversight, these transfers risk introducing 'hot air' carbon units into ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which could jeopardize the goals of limiting global temperature increase to 1.5C or well below 2C.

The open letter argues that the EU ETS currently sustains coal infrastructure through low carbon prices and the misuse of Article 10c and the Modernisation Fund. The signatories call for a tighter ETS cap to increase carbon prices and the explicit exclusion of coal-related investments from funding mechanisms to avoid locking Central and Eastern Europe into coal dependency.

A coalition of networks and organizations calls for an ambitious revision of the EU ETS to stop the use of Article 10c and the Modernisation Fund for fossil fuel capacity, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe. They advocate for a higher carbon price to disincentivize coal and the redirection of funds toward energy efficiency and renewable energy.

The document criticizes the Swedish Energy Agency (SEA) for supporting the Kachung Forest Project (CDM project #4653) in Uganda through a 20-year purchase agreement with Green Resources. The authors argue the project is flawed, causing environmental degradation through non-native eucalyptus and pine plantations and violating local community rights through evictions and livestock confiscation. They further challenge the project's carbon sequestration claims, suggesting it may be a net source of greenhouse gas emissions. Despite criticism, the SEA announced in March 2016 that it would remain engaged to improve community conditions, a move the authors claim supports a system of exploitation by the global North.