Search Climate Insights Directory

The document explains the EU's 2030 climate and energy framework, focusing on the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and the Climate Action Regulation (CAR). It details the requirements for Member States to develop National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) and identifies 'loopholes' in the CAR that may delay climate action. The guide recommends that civil society engage in the NECP process to push for the phase-out of free emission allowances, the introduction of carbon floor prices, and the avoidance of flexibility mechanisms that undermine net-zero transitions.

The letter advocates for a CBAM that covers all high-emitting sectors and indirect emissions from the start, a faster phase-out of free ETS allowances to incentivize green investment, and the earmarking of CBAM certificate revenues for climate mitigation and adaptation in least developed countries.

A coalition of NGOs expresses concerns regarding the European Commission's Expert Group on Carbon Removal, specifically citing a lack of gender and sectoral balance in meeting agendas, the underrepresentation of scientific and environmental voices in the group's composition, and a lack of transparency in documentation and agenda-setting. The signatories argue that the group must address fundamental policy questions regarding the EU carbon budget and the prevention of offsetting emissions with removals, rather than focusing solely on technical methodologies.

A joint statement from NGOs urging the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) to implement the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) as a direct alternative to EU ETS free allowances and indirect cost compensation to maintain decarbonisation incentives.

The document argues that the ETS2 is essential for Europe's climate objectives and competitiveness, warning that delays and revisions risk weakening the instrument's effectiveness. The signatories call for the operationalisation of ETS2 in 2028, the implementation of complementary social and fiscal policies, and transparency in the management of the resulting revenues to support vulnerable households and clean technology investments.

The document argues against a proposed one-year postponement of ETS2, stating it would delay climate action and cost Member States €50 billion in lost auction revenues. The signatories call for the Social Climate Fund to begin in full-size in 2026, the application of its spending principles to the Frontloading Facility, and the submission of ambitious Social Climate Plans by Member States, specifically mentioning Denmark, France, and Germany. They further propose uncapping the fund, linking it to actual carbon revenues, and extending it beyond 2032 to support vulnerable households and micro-enterprises.

An open letter calling for a transformative Social Climate Fund (SCF) to address energy poverty and climate goals in Europe, arguing that the fund must have a flexible, non-capped budget linked to ETS revenues and carbon prices to ensure a just transition.

The document is an open letter addressed to ministers and UNFCCC representatives during COP-19. Signed by 33 civil society networks and individuals from 87 countries, it argues that carbon markets must not compromise the ambition of climate mitigation efforts. The authors call for a comprehensive climate agreement by 2015, specifically demanding the rejection of pilot phase trading under the Diversified Framework Approach (FVA), the removal of non-additional projects and coal power from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and the establishment of international verification to prevent double counting.

The letter expresses concern that 555 million carbon offset credits were surrendered into the EU ETS between 2008 and 2011, costing an estimated €5.9bn. The signatories argue that these offsets stifle domestic action, support business-as-usual coal and large hydro projects in the CDM, and allow for 'hot-air laundering' through Track 1 Joint Implementation, thereby threatening the environmental integrity of EU climate policies.

An analysis of PoA 10471, a cookstove project in Myanmar transitioning to the Article 6.4 mechanism, indicates that the project is likely to issue 7.2 times more credits than justified based on literature-based adjustments. The analysis, applying the Gill-Wiehl (2024) methodology, identifies several factors contributing to this over-crediting, with 'stacking' (2.63x) and 'usage' (1.96x) being the most significant drivers across both analyzed batches of component project activities.

The document evaluates the Paris Agreement as a positive step that increased global ambition to limit warming to 1.5ºC, though it notes that current Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) remain inadequate. It details the creation of three frameworks under Article 6 for carbon markets and non-market approaches, while warning against the use of temporary land-use carbon sequestration to justify continued fossil pollution. The analysis highlights gaps in climate finance, the lack of explicit mandates for international aviation and shipping, and the historic inclusion of human rights in the preamble.

The 9th GCF Board meeting resulted in the accreditation of the first seven implementing entities and the adoption of an initial investment framework to screen project proposals. However, civil society criticized the accreditation process for a lack of transparency and the Board's failure to explicitly exclude fossil fuel projects from funding. The Fund faces a critical deadline of 30 April 2015 to secure the remaining US$4.5 billion in pledged contributions to become officially effective, with only about 1 per cent legally committed as of the report's date.

The 11th GCF Board meeting resulted in the approval of the first eight funding proposals totaling USD 168 million for projects in Africa, Asia-Pacific, and Latin America. The Board adopted a monitoring and accountability framework for accredited entities, including a fee policy for public sector projects (7-10%) and a five-year re-accreditation cycle. While USD 10.2 billion has been pledged to the Fund, only USD 5.83 billion has been signed, with 14 countries yet to finalize contribution agreements. Additionally, the Board approved USD 14 million for readiness support and agreed to develop a strategic plan to be considered at the 12th meeting.

Carbon Market Watch proposes a comprehensive strengthening of the EU ETS, including increasing the Linear Reduction Factor to reach zero emissions by 2040 and increasing the Market Stability Reserve intake rate to 36% from 2024. The organization advocates for the full auctioning of emission allowances, earmarking 100% of revenues for climate action, and extending the system to include international maritime transport and waste incineration. Conversely, it argues against including road transport and buildings in the ETS and opposes the inclusion of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) credits.

The analysis finds that PoA 10415 is likely to issue 26.33 times more credits than it should have across monitoring periods 5, 6, and 7. This over-crediting is driven by multiple factors, with the fraction of non-renewable biomass (fNRB) contributing a factor of 2.94 and fuel stacking contributing 2.19. The project, based in Myanmar, is transitioning from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to the Article 6.4 mechanism of the Paris Agreement.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the current Sustainable Development (SD) Tool under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement lacks robust safeguards for communities affected by land-intensive projects. The organization recommends a fundamental reconsideration of the Tool's structure, advocating for shared decision-making mechanisms, independent validation by Designated Operational Entities (DOEs), the primacy of international human rights standards over weak national laws, and the expansion of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) to all affected communities and land-related impacts.

A coalition of organisations argues that allowing carbon credits to meet scope 3 targets undermines the 'mitigation hierarchy' and corporate responsibility for value chain emissions. The letter warns that such flexibility, as suggested in VCMI's 'beta' guidance, would damage the credibility of climate standards and discourage fundamental business model changes necessary for deep reductions.

The submission argues that environmental attribute certificates, specifically REDD+ carbon credits and energy certificates like RECs and GOs, are unsuitable for corporate decarbonisation targets. It highlights systemic issues in the voluntary carbon market, including over-crediting and flawed methodologies in REDD+ projects, and asserts that energy certificates are financial instruments that do not represent physical electricity delivery. The document advocates for a strict separation of these certificates from gross emission reduction targets, citing the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) as a regulatory precedent.

The briefing argues that energy-intensive industry lobbies in the EU use 'discourses of climate delay' to protect their financial interests, specifically by securing free emission allowances. While these sectors publicly support 2050 climate neutrality, the document claims they actively oppose short-term EU ETS reforms, such as increasing the Linear Reduction Factor or phasing out free allocations. The author asserts that the industry's narrative regarding 'carbon leakage' lacks empirical evidence and serves as a justification for windfall profits. The briefing further details how technical factors in the free allocation formula (BM, HAL, CLEF, and CSCF) are manipulated by lobbyists to maintain high levels of free permits, thereby undermining the 'polluter pays' principle and delaying industrial decarbonisation.

The policy brief outlines seven areas where the EU should enhance its climate policies following the Paris agreement. Key recommendations include increasing the 2020 emission reduction target to 30%, revising the 2050 low-carbon roadmap to meet the 1.5°C objective, and adopting 5-year ambition cycles. It also calls for the phase-out of free pollution permits for industry, the inclusion of aviation and maritime sectors in the EU ETS, and the use of the Sustainable Development Mechanism to finance emission reductions in developing countries without relying on offsetting.