Search Climate Insights Directory

The report contends that carbon offsets in agriculture fail to reduce absolute emissions due to measurement uncertainties, lack of permanence, and issues with additionality. It highlights how these schemes often benefit agribusinesses while undermining food security, increasing land financialization, and locking in industrial farming models. The authors recommend excluding the land sector from international carbon markets under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement and redirecting finance toward agroecological practices.

The report argues that carbon pricing is a vital but insufficient tool for climate action and must be integrated into a broader policy mix. It advocates for absolute emission caps, the elimination of free allowances, and the reinvestment of revenues into public climate benefits. The document strongly warns against the use of carbon offsets and credits, which it claims undermine environmental integrity and allow polluters to avoid real reductions. It also addresses the 'carbon leakage' myth, suggesting that the risks are often overestimated and used to justify policies that lock in polluting industries.

The Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor (CCRM) 2025 finds that corporate climate action is frequently treated as a marketing exercise rather than a business model redesign. While some companies like Inditex and Adidas have improved their target setting, the report highlights widespread 'creative accounting' and greenwashing. Key issues include the use of unbundled Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) in tech and fashion, the conflation of land-based carbon removals with emission reductions in agrifood, and the use of unsubstantiated carbon credits to claim carbon neutrality. The document argues that voluntary standards are insufficient and calls for stringent government regulation, specifically citing EU directives like the CSRD and CSDDD, to mandate transparent reporting and ban product-level carbon neutral claims.

A coalition of 61 organizations argues that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) should be terminated by 2020 to protect the integrity of the Paris Agreement. The authors claim the CDM undermines domestic climate action, has increased global greenhouse gas emissions due to 'junk' credits, and has led to human rights violations and inequitable benefit distribution.

Carbon Market Watch criticizes the EU ETS's free allocation of pollution permits, claiming it has generated over 25 billion euros in windfall profits and stalled industrial emissions cuts. The organization argues that the current approach fails to align with Paris climate goals and recommends a more rigorous impact assessment for the 2021-2030 carbon leakage list. Key recommendations include accounting for international climate policies (such as the Chinese and Californian ETS), focusing on direct emissions, and applying the precautionary principle to ensure only sectors at very high risk of carbon leakage receive free allowances.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the EU ETS should restart in full scope in 2017 and that the ICAO's GMBM must be a legally binding floor for ambition rather than a ceiling. The organization advocates for the elimination of free allowances for aviation, the use of a multiplier of at least two for CO2 emissions to account for non-CO2 climate impacts, and the earmarking of auctioning revenues for the Green Climate Fund.

The document identifies critical transparency gaps in current carbon market infrastructure, specifically within the Clean Development Mechanism, Verra, and Gold Standard registries. It argues that existing systems fail to adequately track credit ownership, verify retirement claims, or distinguish between units contributing to a host country's NDC and those adjusted for international transfer. To remedy this, Carbon Market Watch recommends implementing machine-readable datasets, mandatory non-technical project summaries, detailed financial reporting on revenue distribution, and a transaction log to track legal ownership of credits.

Carbon Market Watch urges the CMA to provide additional guidance to the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body to ensure that standards for removals and methodologies are science-based and transparent. Key recommendations include mandating independent third-party reviews every five years starting in 2028, establishing a maximum risk threshold for project eligibility based on science, and ensuring that performance-based additionality tests are as stringent as financial additionality tests.

Carbon Market Watch urges the European Commission to adopt the most ambitious options for the EU ETS aviation coverage, specifically advocating for full coverage of emissions and 100% auctioning of allowances from the regulation's adoption. The organization criticizes CORSIA as an ineffective climate strategy and warns that replacing EU ETS coverage with CORSIA would reduce climate ambition and revenue. Additionally, the document calls for the regulation of non-CO2 effects, which are estimated to multiply the global warming impact of aviation CO2 by 2-4 times.

Carbon Market Watch urges the Kenyan government to completely rewrite the climate change amendment bill 2023, citing pervasive ambiguity and vague terminology. The organization argues that the current wording could lead to misinterpretation, potentially harming human rights and the environment. Specific concerns include the lack of clear definitions for actors in the voluntary carbon market, the failure to distinguish between 'aiming' for reductions and actually delivering them, and insufficient requirements for the permanence of carbon removals. The response also highlights a need for greater transparency, specifically calling for the public availability of the Registry and community development agreements.

Carbon Market Watch opposes Verra's proposed "tonne-year accounting" method, which would allow projects storing carbon temporarily to issue credits based on the duration of storage (e.g., 100 tonnes for 1 year equals 1 credit). The organization argues this approach is logically flawed regarding radiative forcing, incompatible with finite global carbon budgets, and creates a risk where short-term benefits are prioritized over long-term climate costs. Additionally, it warns that the method could encourage selection bias, allowing high-risk projects to avoid long-term monitoring requirements.

The report evaluates the Greenhouse Gas Protocol's Land Sector and Removals Standard (LSRS), a framework for corporate accounting of land-based emissions and carbon removals. While praising the mandate for separate accounting of emissions and removals, the authors identify critical weaknesses: the voluntary nature of removals reporting and a provision that may allow the SBTi's FLAG Guidance—which permits netting—to take precedence. The analysis also criticizes the inclusion of enhanced oil and gas recovery, the lack of mandatory measurement-based quantification, and loopholes in 'physical traceability' via non-proportional mass balance. The report concludes with recommendations to make removals reporting mandatory, exclude fossil fuel recovery, and assert the LSRS's primacy over other target-setting frameworks.

The report argues that while the EU ETS has halved emissions in key sectors, it remains structurally oversupplied and hampered by free allocation subsidies. It advocates for the total elimination of free allowances, the expansion of the system to cover all international aviation and shipping, and the rejection of carbon offsets and removals. The document emphasizes that the Market Stability Reserve (MSR) must be preserved to maintain a strong carbon price signal and that revenues should be redirected from fossil fuel subsidies toward a 'people first' transition.

Carbon Market Watch (CMW) outlines recommendations for COP27 to ensure transparency, integrity, and climate ambition in the implementation of Article 6. Key proposals include the definitive exclusion of emission avoidance from eligible outcomes, the rejection of tonne-year accounting for removals, and the prohibition of using Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) toward Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). CMW emphasizes that all reporting and registry data should be public, machine-readable, and comprehensive to prevent double counting and ensure accountability.

Carbon Market Watch (CMW) outlines specific recommendations for the SBSTA to ensure environmental integrity and transparency in the implementation of Article 6.2 and 6.4. For Article 6.2, CMW advocates for a strict sequencing of procedural steps where ITMO transfers are halted until technical expert reviews are complete, the prohibition of authorization revisions after transfer, and the public flagging of 'material inconsistencies' on the CARP. It also argues against the use of confidential information and the recording of unauthorized outcomes in registries. For Article 6.4, CMW recommends the definitive exclusion of emission avoidance activities and requires that authorization statements be provided prior to the issuance of A6.4ERs to prevent double counting.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) must be implemented as a full alternative to free emission allowances to avoid market failures and incentivize industrial decarbonisation. The organization demands that the CBAM's scope be expanded to include bulk chemicals and indirect emissions, and that it provide special exemptions or support for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS). Furthermore, it advocates for the full earmarking of CBAM and EU ETS revenues for climate action, both within the EU and as international climate finance, while opposing the introduction of export rebates for EU companies.

Carbon Market Watch advises the CMA against adopting the Supervisory Body's text on removals under the Article 6.4 mechanism without further guidance to ensure environmental integrity. The organization calls for stricter definitions of removal durability, the creation of a science-based risk assessment tool, mandatory post-crediting monitoring, and clear rules on avoidable reversals and buffer pool replenishment. Regarding methodology development, it suggests requiring proponents to prove carbon credit revenues were a significant income source and conducting additionality analyses for different activity types.

A coalition of individuals and organizations argues that a clear, implementable model for funding beyond value-chain climate action already exists to support the global transition to net zero emissions. The proposed framework requires companies to prioritize their own decarbonization along a 1.5C° trajectory and follow five specific steps: calculating and disclosing GHG footprints (scopes 1, 2, and 3), determining a dedicated budget, conducting due diligence for a high-impact portfolio, financing those initiatives, and maintaining public transparency by separating these funds from internal efforts.

The briefing examines the EU's Carbon Removals Certification Framework (CRCF), specifically criticizing the Delegated Act for permanent removals. It argues that the current methodologies for Direct Air Capture with Storage (DACCS), Biomass with capture and storage (BioCCS), and Biochar fail to account for environmental knock-on effects, lack proper monitoring and liability, and breach the 'Do No Significant Harm' principle. The author warns that these flaws could lead to certified activities increasing atmospheric emissions and undermine the EU's path to climate neutrality, potentially exposing buyers to greenwashing accusations if integrated into the EU Emission Trading System or voluntary markets.

The statement argues that the draft Delegated Act lacks necessary safeguards regarding indirect land-use change, livestock emissions, and long-term carbon storage. It calls for the reinstatement of additionality criteria, the introduction of liability mechanisms for peatlands, and the inclusion of social safeguards to prevent land speculation.