Search Climate Insights Directory

The document examines the risks of using agricultural soil carbon sequestration as carbon offsets. It highlights technical failures in measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV), the non-permanence of biological carbon compared to fossil carbon, and social risks such as land grabbing and the marginalization of small-scale farmers. The author argues that 'Climate Smart Agriculture' often serves as greenwashing for agribusiness corporations. Instead of carbon markets, the report recommends using National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) to prioritize food security, tenure rights, and sustainable rural livelihoods.

A coalition of 121 civil society organisations calls for a robust Paris Treaty featuring 5-year commitment periods, a 2050 decarbonisation goal, and the exclusion of international carbon offsets. The letter advocates for a human rights-based approach, the integration of Sustainable Development Goals, and the recognition of Loss & Damage to ensure a just transition and environmental integrity.

Carbon Market Watch argues that while few countries explicitly include international trading in their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, carbon pricing is already used by jurisdictions representing 40% of the global economy. The organization warns that a lack of clear international rules could lead to non-harmonized standards and double counting. It recommends strict principles for carbon markets, including the avoidance of 'hot air' credits, the requirement for net atmospheric benefits, and the exclusion of REDD-plus from carbon markets.

The document warns that 11 gigatonnes of 'hot air' credits—resulting from overestimated emissions and low-quality projects under the Kyoto Protocol—threaten the ambition of the Paris agreement. It proposes that these credits should not be carried over into the compliance period starting in 2020 and that strict eligibility rules should limit the use of market mechanisms to parties with ambitious reduction goals.

The policy brief highlights how climate mitigation actions under the UNFCCC can infringe on human rights, citing the Sasan coal power project as a case study of forced displacement and pollution. It calls for the Paris agreement to explicitly commit parties to human rights obligations and establish a robust institutional safeguard system, including grievance and monitoring mechanisms, to manage the risks associated with increasing climate finance flows from 2020 onwards.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) requires fundamental reform to remain viable after 2020, specifically to move beyond 'pure offsetting' and ensure human rights protections. The organization recommends establishing a formal grievance mechanism, strengthening civil society participation, and introducing stricter additionality testing to exclude high-emission technologies like coal. It also calls for the removal of conflicts of interest within the CDM Executive Board and the introduction of liability rules for Designated Operational Entities (DOEs) to prevent the issuance of non-additional credits.

The policy brief warns that the EU's 2030 commitment to reduce emissions by at least 40% below 1990 levels could be undermined by a projected surplus of up to 4.5 GtCO2e in the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and 1.5–1.7 GtCO2e in the Effort Sharing Decision (ESD). If these 'hot air' allowances are carried over, the effective emission reductions for 2030 could drop to 32%. The author recommends the permanent cancellation of at least 2 billion EU allowances by the end of 2020 and the prohibition of pre-2020 reductions in the 2030 ESD, while calling for robust international accounting and eligibility criteria under the Paris agreement to prevent similar issues globally.

The policy brief defines 'hot air' as carbon credits that do not represent real emission reductions, which can increase overall global emissions if used to meet mitigation pledges. It identifies four primary sources of hot air: surplus allowances from emission trading systems, double-counted reductions, non-additional credits from offsetting projects, and non-permanent land-use offsets. To protect the environmental integrity of the Paris agreement, the author recommends regulating carbon market use to exclude surplus pre-2020 units, establishing a robust international accounting and MRV system, shifting from offset credits to direct financial support for developing countries, and banning non-permanent land-use offsets.

The policy brief advocates for aligning the 2015 Paris climate negotiations with the UN's 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It proposes that the final treaty include a new article requiring parties to develop national zero-carbon climate-resilient strategies with decarbonization trajectories by 2050. The brief emphasizes that climate action must be integrated into broader national development portfolios—including energy, trade, and health—and that monitoring and accountability frameworks (MRV) should be aligned with the human rights and gender-sensitive principles of the 2030 Agenda.

Carbon Market Watch recommends that the Green Climate Fund (GCF) avoid the shortcomings of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) by implementing strict criteria for additionality, sustainability, and social safeguards in its funding proposals.

UN Special Rapporteur John Knox advocates for the integration of international human rights law into the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), supporting recommendations from 98 civil society organizations to establish an independent accountability mechanism and improve stakeholder consultation to protect vulnerable populations from the adverse effects of climate mitigation measures.

A coalition of 98 global entities argues that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) fails to comply with international human rights obligations, specifically those recognized in the 2010 Cancun Agreements. The letter calls for the establishment of an independent accountability mechanism, the adoption of international sustainable development safeguards, and the implementation of improved stakeholder consultation processes to prevent environmental and social harms.

The policy brief argues that any use of carbon markets post-2020 must be governed by strict environmental integrity standards to avoid 'hot air' and double counting. It recommends that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) undergo fundamental reform, including the adoption of social and human rights safeguards, to remain viable. The brief also calls for the exclusion of early action credits from post-2020 targets and urges the UNFCCC to demand greater emission reductions and adaptation levies from the international aviation (ICAO) and maritime (IMO) sectors. Finally, it advocates for the inclusion of human rights and gender equality protections in the core text of the Paris Agreement.

The document challenges the justification for granting free carbon allowances to EU industries to prevent 'carbon leakage' (production relocation). It argues that there is no compelling evidence of such leakage and that free allocations instead create windfall profits for companies, disincentivize low-carbon innovation, and deprive the public of auctioning revenues. The brief recommends a transition to 100% auctioning of allowances and a more stringent, transparent criteria for the carbon leakage list to ensure only truly high-risk sectors receive support.

Carbon Market Watch recommends that the ICAO GMBM exclude high-risk offset projects, including fossil fuel power plants, nuclear facilities, large-scale hydropower, and certain industrial gas destruction projects. The brief highlights that these project types often lack additionality, cause severe social and environmental harm, or suffer from non-permanence. It cites existing exclusions in the EU ETS and other jurisdictions as precedents for maintaining high quality standards in aviation's climate response.

The policy brief identifies the EU ETS as currently ineffective due to a massive oversupply of pollution permits and a carbon price too low to incentivize low-carbon investment. It proposes four primary interventions: cancelling at least 2 billion surplus allowances in the Market Stability Reserve by 2020, increasing the linear reduction factor to at least 2.6% to align with 2050 decarbonisation goals, implementing a one-billion allowance ceiling on the Market Stability Reserve to account for technological progress, and shortening trading periods to five years to increase responsiveness to market and scientific changes.

The document examines the fragmentation of social and environmental standards across UNFCCC instruments, including the CDM, REDD+, NAMAs, GCF, and AF. It finds that while some funds like the GCF and AF have robust safeguard policies, others like the CDM and NAMAs lack mandatory monitoring, universal guidelines for stakeholder consultation, or formal redress mechanisms. The author recommends that the Paris climate treaty explicitly mandate the protection of human rights and establish a centralized UNFCCC accountability mechanism and safeguards system to ensure climate actions do not cause adverse social or environmental impacts.

The webinar report emphasizes that NAMAs are complex systems requiring broad stakeholder involvement to be effective. It argues that engaging civil society throughout the NAMA process helps identify implementation barriers, ensures the assessment of co-benefits, and fosters public acceptance and ownership. CSOs are identified as both drivers of their own missions through NAMAs and primary recipients of the resulting co-benefits.

Civil society organizations are urging the CDM Executive Board to act against the Barro Blanco Hydroelectric Project in Panama. They cite the Panamanian government's temporary suspension of the project due to failures in reaching agreements with indigenous Ngöbe-Buglé communities and breaches of environmental impact assessments. The authors argue that the project's 2011 CDM registration ignored evidence that stakeholder consultation rules were not met and call for the Board to coordinate with financing banks and national authorities to ensure compliance with human rights and CDM standards.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the EU ETS review proposal prioritizes industrial interests over climate goals by earmarking at least €160 billion in free pollution permits after 2020. While the proposal increases the linear reduction factor to 2.2% to meet 2030 targets, the organization contends this is offset by the release of surplus allowances and the continuation of free allocations to prevent hypothetical carbon leakage.