Search Climate Insights Directory

Carbon Market Watch asserts that the EU's plan to link the EU ETS with the Swiss carbon market necessitates an increase in the EU's domestic reduction target beyond 40%, as the current target is intended to be achieved without international credits. The organization warns that a surplus of emission allowances, estimated to reach 2.6 GtCO2 by 2020, could dilute the 2030 target by 7%. Additionally, the document highlights risks from accounting tricks involving Member State surpluses and artificial gains in forest management, which could further weaken the target by 5% each.

Carbon Market Watch criticizes the European Parliament for delaying the implementation of the Market Stability Reserve (MSR) until 2019 and for allowing 300 million surplus allowances to return to the market for an innovation fund. The organization warns that the EU ETS is currently flooded with over two billion excess permits, which suppresses carbon prices and hinders the transition to renewable energy. It urges EU Member States to establish the reserve by 2017 to prevent the oversupply from potentially reaching 4.5 billion permits by 2020.

A group of organisations calls on the European Union to ensure that its external actions on climate change fully respect and promote human rights. The letter highlights the importance of maintaining human rights language in the 2015 international climate treaty and suggests that the EU's Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy should explicitly support these objectives.

The Geneva Pledge, signed by 19 nations in February 2015, commits governments to foster collaboration between their human rights and climate change experts. The signatories acknowledge that climate change disproportionately affects vulnerable populations and pledge to ensure that the transition to a low-carbon economy respects human rights and ensures no one is left behind.

The document warns that the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) is dysfunctional due to a surplus of over 2 billion tonnes of pollution permits, which has caused carbon prices to drop from 30 euros in 2008 to approximately 7 euros. It advocates for the immediate implementation of a market stability reserve to manage this overcapacity, noting that failure to reform the market could lead to a shift toward national-level command-and-control measures and undermine global carbon trading systems and the Paris climate summit. However, it cautions that a reserve is only a temporary cushion and that a permanent cancellation of surplus permits is necessary to protect future climate targets.

Carbon Market Watch asserts that climate change and sustainable development are deeply interlinked and that the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) must incorporate stronger wording and a standalone climate goal. The author warns that the current separation between the SDG process and the UNFCCC process creates confusion and risks undermining development efforts, as the UNFCCC climate treaty will not enter into force until after 2020.

The document asserts that aviation is the fastest growing and most carbon intensive transport mode, contributing 5% of global warming. It criticizes ICAO's current approach as inadequate, focusing on limiting growth rather than reducing emissions. The brief calls for the removal of aviation fuel tax and VAT exemptions, the implementation of binding emissions reduction budgets for 2030 and 2050, and a more proactive EU role in ensuring the environmental integrity of a Global Market-Based Mechanism (GMBM). It also suggests shifting focus toward rail infrastructure to reduce aviation dependence.

The 10th GCF Board meeting resulted in the accreditation of 13 new entities, including the World Bank and Deutsche Bank, despite civil society opposition. The Board approved a US$200 million pilot for Enhanced Direct Access, alongside other pilots for MSMEs and resource mobilization. Additionally, US$2.5 million was allocated for readiness support in nine countries, and the Fund's total signed contributions reached US$5.47 billion.

The document reports on a side event held during COP20 in Lima, where experts and community representatives argued that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) lacks sufficient social safeguards and sustainable development criteria. Presenters highlighted specific hydroelectric projects in Guatemala and Panama where the absence of free, prior, and informed consent led to human rights violations and loss of life. The event called for the integration of international human rights law into climate policies and the establishment of effective appeals procedures and procedural regulations to protect vulnerable communities and environmental defenders.

The document details a discussion on the failure of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects to provide sustainable development, highlighting human rights violations and the lack of social safeguards. It specifically cites the Reliance Sasan Ultra Mega Power Plant in India for violating additionality and stakeholder consultation rules, and coal mining in Colombia for causing coercive displacement and killings. The report emphasizes the urgent need for a grievance mechanism within the CDM and introduces the CDM Benefit Tracker to monitor discrepancies between promised and actual project benefits in India.

The briefing examines the use of Upstream Emission Reductions (UERs) to meet the Fuel Quality Directive's (FQD) target of reducing transport fuel greenhouse gas intensity by 6% by 2020. It warns that the current implementing measure lacks additionality requirements and oversight, creating a high risk of double counting across EU Member States, between the EU and third countries, and between the FQD and the EU ETS. The author highlights that projects from the Alberta Offset System, including road construction for tar sands mining, could potentially qualify. To ensure environmental integrity and reduce administrative burdens, the document recommends that Member States restrict UERs to CDM projects in Least Developed Countries, noting that a single project in Angola could potentially meet the entire estimated 0.8% gap in the FQD target.

The document argues that while the EU's 2030 target of at least 40% domestic greenhouse gas reductions is a positive step, it may conflict with plans to link carbon markets. The author warns that linking with external emissions trading schemes could introduce 'foreign' allowances that dilute domestic targets, especially given the existing oversupply of over 2 billion allowances in the EU market. To effectively participate in a future global carbon market, the document suggests the EU must scale up its ambition to at least 55% and permanently resolve the surplus of allowances from the pre-2020 period.

The document contends that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) lacks the necessary environmental and social standards to be integrated into results-based climate finance. It highlights that many CDM projects fail to produce real emission reductions due to a lack of additionality and have caused negative impacts on local communities, including human rights violations. The author argues that the Green Climate Fund (GCF) should not purchase stranded offset credits from existing CDM projects, as this would contradict the GCF's mandate for new and additional financial resources and its own interim environmental and social safeguards, which require stakeholder participation and grievance mechanisms that the CDM lacks.

The document emphasizes that robust accounting rules and quality criteria are essential for the integrity of future carbon markets to avoid double counting and ensure net atmospheric benefits. It advocates for consistency across different mechanisms, including those for international aviation (ICAO), and warns against including land-use activities like REDD-plus in carbon markets due to risks of leakage and impermanence.

Carbon Market Watch asserts that international carbon markets require high ambition and demand to function effectively. Drawing on the Kyoto Protocol experience where weak targets in Russia and Ukraine created 'hot air' credits that undermined emissions trading, the author advocates for eligibility criteria based on stringent targets and the principle of supplementarity, where market units only supplement domestic ambition.

The document opposes using carbon markets to promote climate-smart agriculture, citing the risk of impermanence in soil and forest carbon sequestration compared to permanent fossil fuel emissions. It highlights that land use accounts for 24% of global emissions and suggests that finance for these activities should be mobilized through non-market mechanisms like Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) to avoid compromising food security and adaptation.

Carbon Market Watch argues that previous market-based mechanisms, such as the CDM and EU ETS, failed due to oversupply and poor environmental integrity. To prevent these failures in a post-2020 regime, the organization recommends strict eligibility rules based on national ambition, the exclusion of REDD-plus and agriculture from carbon markets, and the implementation of discounting to ensure net atmospheric benefits. It further calls for a UN-led standard-setting body, a robust institutional safeguard system to protect human rights, and a share of proceeds from all traded units to be allocated to the Adaptation Fund.

The document argues that the CDM, as a pure offsetting mechanism, often fails to deliver real emission reductions and lacks sufficient social safeguards. It proposes a fundamental overhaul of the CDM's modalities and procedures, focusing on achieving net atmospheric benefits, strengthening additionality testing, shortening crediting periods, and enhancing civil society participation and grievance mechanisms. It also calls for greater transparency from Designated National Authorities (DNAs), stricter eligibility and conduct rules for the CDM Executive Board, and the introduction of liability rules for Designated Operational Entities (DOEs) to prevent conflicts of interest.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the draft review of Joint Implementation (JI) guidelines requires critical improvements to prevent the issuance of non-additional credits. The organization advocates for stronger oversight by the Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee (JISC), the mandatory reassessment of existing projects, the termination of crediting periods by 2020, and the cessation of retroactive crediting to protect the integrity of climate targets.

Carbon Market Watch opposes expanding LULUCF activities within the CDM, citing risks to climate adaptation, a lack of market demand for offsets, and the non-permanent nature of land-based carbon sequestration compared to permanent fossil fuel emissions. The organization suggests that LULUCF activities are better suited for Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), and REDD+, emphasizing a rights-based approach to food security and land rights.