Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that the aviation sector has benefited from excessive exemptions under the EU ETS and that the international CORSIA scheme is an ineffective substitute. It recommends bringing international flights back under the EU ETS, phasing out free allowances to airlines, and addressing non-CO2 climate impacts to align the sector with the Paris Agreement and the polluter pays principle.

The policy brief examines the role of the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) in decarbonising the plastics sector. It highlights that while oil refining and bulk chemical manufacturing are covered, waste incineration remains excluded. The author argues that free allowance allocations have historically created windfall profits for refineries (4.6 billion EUR) and petrochemicals (1.7 billion EUR) between 2008 and 2015, hindering emission reductions. To drive a zero-carbon transition, the document recommends increasing the CO2 price signal, phasing out free allowances, recycling auction revenues into climate innovation, and including Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) incineration in the EU ETS to discourage the burning of 20-30 million tonnes of plastic waste annually.

The briefing argues that allowing 'hot air' credits—surplus units from the Kyoto Protocol or inflated NDCs—threatens global climate targets. It proposes four 'damage control measures': prohibiting the use of Kyoto Protocol units (CERs, ERUs, AAUs) after 2020; limiting the transfer of units to 1% of 2010-2012 average annual emissions; prohibiting the carry-over of Article 6.2 ITMOs across NDC periods; and limiting the lifetime of Article 6.4 emission reductions to five years with restricted banking.

The International Coalition for Sustainable Aviation (ICSA) evaluates the 'CORSIA Package,' which includes Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) for the global aviation carbon offsetting scheme. While acknowledging the technical soundness of much of the package, ICSA argues that current provisions for reporting transparency, emissions unit eligibility, and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) sustainability criteria are insufficient. The document recommends that ICAO expand sustainability criteria to include social and economic attributes, improve third-party access to emissions reports, and refine life cycle assessment (LCA) values for waste-based feedstocks to prevent environmental harm and double counting.

Carbon Market Watch has filed a complaint with the ICVCM, asserting that Verra violated the Core Carbon Principles (CCP) Assessment Framework by failing to ensure impartiality during its review of human rights allegations made by Human Rights Watch. The complaint highlights that Verra relied on the project implementer and the same validation/verification bodies that had previously approved the project, creating inherent conflicts of interest. Carbon Market Watch calls on the ICVCM to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of Verra's grievance mechanism and to implement a broader process for assessing program compliance beyond written commitments.

Carbon Market Watch calls for the revision of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) to address a gap in greenhouse gas (GHG) regulation. The organization argues that the EU Emission Trading System (ETS) has failed to provide sufficient incentives for industrial decarbonisation due to the over-allocation of free allowances, which led to windfall profits of over €25 billion between 2008 and 2015. To align the IED with the European Green Deal's zero-pollution and climate neutrality goals, the author recommends deleting Article 9(1) to allow GHG emission limits in permits, making energy efficiency standards binding under Article 9(2), phasing out coal and lignite by 2030, and introducing a Paris Agreement compliance test for new industrial investments.

A coalition of trade associations, businesses, and NGOs argues that excluding waste incinerators and landfills from the EU ETS creates distorted price signals and undermines circular economy goals. They call on the Commission to use its mandate under Article 30(7) of the EU ETS Directive to propose the inclusion of these sectors by 2026 for implementation in 2028, noting that incineration emits over 95 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent annually and landfills produce potent methane emissions.

A joint NGO statement arguing that the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) must remove the overlap with free ETS allowances, expand its sectoral scope, provide special considerations for vulnerable nations, and redirect all revenues to international climate finance to avoid being a 'protectionist' measure.

The Social Climate Fund (SCF) is an EU initiative designed to mitigate the social impacts of the new Emissions Trading System (ETS2), which applies carbon pricing to fuels used in buildings and road transport. Operating from 2026 to 2032, the fund will provide approximately €86.7 billion in targeted support for lower-income groups and micro-enterprises. Member states must submit Social Climate Plans (SCPs) by June 2025 to access funding, which is allocated based on need. While the SCF supports investments in energy-saving renovations and zero-emission transport, it is limited to alleviating new poverty risks and is deemed insufficient to address the root causes of existing energy and transport poverty in Europe. The document recommends increasing available funds, avoiding fossil fuel lock-in by prohibiting 'low-emission' fossil-based investments, and ensuring earlier fund availability through loans.

The report by Carbon Market Watch provides a framework for implementing 'right' carbon pricing, arguing that such systems must be integrated into a broader policy mix, feature declining emission caps, and avoid loopholes like free allocations and carbon offsets. It emphasizes the need for transparency, the reinvestment of revenues into climate action and vulnerable communities, and the use of carbon border adjustments to prevent leakage while maintaining equity.

An open letter from various environmental and industrial organisations calling for a 68% reduction in ETS emissions, the phase-out of free allowances by 2030, and the use of CBAM as a replacement for carbon leakage protections to ensure the 'polluters pay' principle is upheld.

The document argues that the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) has functioned as a subsidy for high-emitting industries, providing €50 billion in windfall profits while failing to reduce emissions. The authors call for a full phase-out of free allowances by 2032, a 10% annual reduction starting in 2026, and the introduction of a fully operational Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) by 2026. They further propose making any remaining free allowances conditional on energy efficiency and decarbonisation plans, and revising benchmarks to include a minimum improvement rate of at least 0.4%.

The letter argues that greenwashing is a "widespread scourge across the EU" and calls for a ban on carbon neutrality claims in upcoming legislative proposals. The signatories demand that companies report emissions reductions separately from external climate financing and that any long-term net zero targets requiring carbon credits be subject to corresponding adjustments under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement to prevent double counting. Additionally, the letter criticizes the European Commission's own 2030 climate neutrality target for being unspecific and urges the institution to prioritize absolute reductions over offsets.

The document critiques agricultural carbon offsets, stating they risk harming farmers' autonomy, fail to provide permanent carbon sequestration, and may actually increase overall emissions. It recommends that governments and international bodies exclude land-based offsets from carbon markets and instead fund agroecological transitions.

The briefing argues that the European Commission's proposal to delete the MSR's invalidation mechanism would weaken the EU ETS by risking a return to structural oversupply. It asserts that the MSR must retain its ability to permanently delete allowances to maintain carbon price signals and emission reductions. Additionally, the document recommends that the MSR's intake and release thresholds and release quantities be made dynamic to scale proportionally with the shrinking ETS cap, particularly as the cap is projected to decrease from just under 1.4 billion tonnes of CO2e in 2024 to 746 million tonnes in 2031.

The signatories support improving demand information and early auctions for ETS2 to increase credibility and investment. However, they oppose weakening MSR2 release conditions or extending its lifetime, arguing these measures would increase total emissions and undermine EU climate targets and the Effort Sharing Regulation. Instead, they advocate for complementary policies to reduce emissions demand, such as clean technology subsidies and the fair distribution of revenues via the Social Climate Fund.

The document asserts that there is no evidence of carbon leakage in Europe from 2005 to 2012, yet the European Commission continues to over-allocate free pollution permits. It criticizes the Commission for using an artificially high carbon price of €30 in its 2015-2019 carbon leakage list, which inflates industry costs and reduces government auctioning revenues. The briefing suggests that using a more realistic carbon price of €16.5 or €10 would significantly reduce the number of free permits and exclude sectors like cement and steel from full compensation.

The document reports that there are 144 NAMAs, with the majority (137) still under development. Latin America has the highest concentration of these activities (41%), and the energy supply sector is the most represented (39%). Financing remains a significant gap, as 94 NAMAs are seeking funds, while only 10 have received financing and 5 are fully funded.

The document reports that there are 144 NAMAs globally, with 41% located in Latin America and 39% focused on energy supply. It highlights that 60% of NAMA activities are integrated into national policies and strategies. Regarding finance, 94 NAMAs are awaiting funding, while only a small number have received partial or full funding from entities such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the NAMA Facility.

The document reports that there are 144 NAMAs in various stages, with 41% located in Latin America and 39% focused on energy supply. It notes that 60% of NAMA activities are part of national policies and strategies, while financing data remains incomplete, with 94 NAMAs seeking funds.