Search Climate Insights Directory

Carbon Market Watch criticizes the EU Modernisation Fund for continuing to finance fossil gas, waste incineration, and biomass projects, noting that at least EUR 4.2 billion (27% of spending) has gone to investments not aligned with the fund's aims. The organization calls for more ambitious emissions avoidance benchmarks and a shift in funding toward grid improvements, renewables, building renovation, and public transport electrification to support lower-income member states ahead of the 2027 ETS2 implementation.

The IMO's new Net-Zero Framework is criticized as a 'defeat for the climate' because it replaces a universal carbon levy with a hybrid fuel standard and weak carbon pricing. The author contends that the scheme will only reduce emissions by about 10% by 2030—half of the IMO's own base target—and will generate insufficient revenue ($11-12 billion annually) to support the transition to zero-emission fuels, which requires $12-24 billion per year.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the draft Baseline standard for Article 6.4 mechanism methodologies fails to quantitatively demonstrate alignment with the Paris Agreement's long-term temperature goals. The organization criticizes the proposed 1% annual downward adjustment as insufficient to raise ambition over time and suggests adopting a 'Paris Goal Coefficient' to link baseline emissions directly to net-zero target dates. Additionally, it recommends that Best Available Technology (BAT) be revised at least every five years and that legally binding national or sub-national targets be incorporated into Business-As-Usual (BAU) scenarios regardless of the perceived sufficiency of implementation frameworks.

Carbon Market Watch warns that the European Commission is considering "loopholes" to weaken the EU's 2040 climate target, including the use of international carbon credits and carbon removals. The organization argues that such measures would undermine domestic emissions reductions, repeat past failures of the EU Emissions Trading System, and contradict the recommendations of the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change, which suggests a 90-95% emissions cut through domestic action alone.

Carbon Market Watch defends the independence of environmental NGOs receiving EU LIFE programme funding against allegations from some Members of the European Parliament that these organisations act as unofficial mouthpieces for the European Commission. The organisation highlights the vast disparity between the €15 million annual LIFE funding for NGOs and the €1.3 billion spent by corporate lobbyists in 2023, asserting that such grants are vital for balancing the playing field without compromising the NGOs' role as watchdogs.

The report argues that the Korean Emissions Trading Scheme (K-ETS) is undermined by a reliance on low-quality international carbon credits, which lead to over-crediting and depressed carbon prices. Using the EU ETS as a benchmark, the authors demonstrate how the EU phased out international credits to prioritize domestic reductions. A specific analysis of cookstove projects eligible for K-ETS finds they likely overestimate emission reductions by a factor of 18.3. The report also highlights systemic issues with hydropower and gas leak reduction projects, including lack of additionality and environmental harm. It recommends that South Korea ban international credits from the K-ETS, strengthen emission caps, and avoid using unreliable bilateral cooperation projects under Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement to meet its 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC).

Carbon Market Watch warns that watering down the EU ETS and Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) mandates in response to airline industry pressure would increase emissions and undermine EU clean tech competitiveness. The author calls for extending SAF funding to 2040, expanding the EU ETS to all departing international flights, and implementing penalties for fuel suppliers who fail to meet SAF targets.

Carbon Market Watch evaluates the ICVCM's recent decisions on cookstove methodologies, praising the rejection of legacy Kyoto Protocol methodologies and the conditional approval of the Gold Standard Metered methodology, while arguing that other approved methodologies like GS-TPDDTEC and VM0050 still contain loopholes regarding adoption and usage rates.

The briefing criticizes the EU's draft methodologies for the Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming Framework (CRCF), specifically regarding the 'mandatory biodiversity co-benefit' criterion. It argues that the results-based approach relies on circular and weak indicators, such as soil organic carbon (SOC), while the activity-based approach incorrectly presumes biodiversity gains without considering farm-specific contexts. The author calls for the adoption of more robust, science-based indicators, a delay in publishing methodologies to align with the Soil Monitoring Law, and the inclusion of a review clause to ensure environmental integrity.

A joint letter calling for an EU lending facility to frontload future ETS2 revenues, allowing Member States to invest in zero-emission alternatives for vulnerable households before the 2027 implementation of carbon pricing for buildings and road transport.

Carbon Market Watch urges the European Union to revise its proposal for a global shipping carbon levy before the April 2025 IMO negotiations. The organization argues that the current plan lacks sufficient support for least developed countries (LDCs) and small island developing states (SIDS), who are most vulnerable to increased shipping costs. It recommends that the EU expand revenue use beyond the maritime sector, allocate more funds to vulnerable nations for climate adaptation and resilience, and establish transparent redistribution mechanisms to ensure a just transition.

The report argues that the EU ETS continues to reward heavy polluters through free allowances, which in 2023 alone amounted to approximately 40 billion euros. It highlights that sectors like steel, cement, and chemicals often receive more allowances than they emit, reducing the incentive for decarbonisation. The authors critique the Innovation Fund for over-financing carbon capture technologies (CCS/CCU) rather than scalable zero-emission technologies. To accelerate the transition, the report recommends phasing out free allowances by 2030, fully implementing the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), and reforming the Innovation Fund to prioritise material savings and renewable energy solutions.

Carbon Market Watch opposes efforts by politicians in countries like Poland and Czechia to reverse or delay the EU's ETS2 carbon pricing system for buildings and road transport. The organization argues that the ETS2 is critical for achieving a 42% emission reduction in these sectors by 2030 and a 55% net reduction overall by 2050. It highlights that the system includes social protections, such as the €86 billion Social Climate Fund and a €45 per tonne soft price cap, to protect vulnerable populations. The document warns that weakening the system would increase future economic costs, exacerbate the climate crisis, and undermine the EU's energy sovereignty.

Carbon Market Watch advocates for replacing 'net' climate targets with three distinct targets: gross emissions reductions, biogenic sequestration in natural sinks, and permanent carbon dioxide removals (CDR). The guide explains that 'net' targets often mask a lack of progress in emissions reductions by relying on uncertain or temporary removals. It distinguishes between permanent technical solutions, such as direct air capture and carbon storage (DACCS), and temporary natural solutions like reforestation. The document argues that separate targets prevent 'mitigation deterrence' and provide better governance of the finite resources required for CDR. While some progress is noted in Germany and Sweden, the author urges the European Commission to adopt this three-target approach in its upcoming 2040 climate target proposal.

The document advocates for separating carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from general climate goals to avoid 'mitigation deterrence,' where the hope of future CDR technologies slows current emission reductions. It proposes a three-pronged approach: binding targets for gross emission reductions, biosequestration in natural sinks, and permanent technological removal. While the EU currently uses 'net' targets for 2030 and 2050, the author suggests the upcoming 2040 target proposal is an ideal opportunity to formalize this separation.

Carbon Market Watch condemns FIFA's hosting decisions for the 2030 and 2034 World Cups, asserting that the events will cause severe environmental damage. The organization highlights the failure of the 2022 Qatar World Cup's carbon neutrality claims and warns that the 2030 tournament's multi-continental structure and Saudi Arabia's 2034 bid—which includes building 11 new stadiums—will lead to massive emissions from construction and air travel. The statement also links these decisions to the influence of polluting corporate sponsors like Aramco and raises concerns over migrant worker deaths in host nations.

A joint letter from various organisations calling for a 'people first' approach to EU ETS revenues, recommending stricter earmarking rules to prevent fossil fuel lock-in, the phase-out of free allowances for polluters, and the expansion of the Social Climate Fund to protect vulnerable citizens from ETS2 costs.

The policy brief, resulting from the CO2ol Down co-creation project, argues for a clear distinction between temporary biogenic sequestration and permanent carbon dioxide removals (CDR). It recommends that the EU set legally binding, transparent targets for permanent removals in addition to emissions reduction targets, aiming for net-negative GHG emissions by 2055. The brief proposes a governance framework involving EU-level oversight of CO2 transport and storage, member state-level procurement via reverse auctions or contracts for difference, and a financing model based on the 'Polluter Pays' principle. It emphasizes a portfolio approach to diversify removal methods and strict sustainability criteria, including the requirement that CDR activities be powered by additional renewable energy sources.

The report, produced by the CO2ol Down project, argues that the current EU Climate Law fails to differentiate between temporary biogenic sequestration and permanent carbon removals. It proposes specific legislative amendments to ensure that permanent removals are used only to compensate for residual emissions and that biogenic sequestration is managed for ecosystem resilience rather than as a primary tool for climate neutrality. The proposal suggests establishing separate targets and trajectories for emissions reductions, biogenic sequestration, and permanent removals to avoid mitigation deterrence.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the EU's net carbon sink is declining rapidly and that the current LULUCF Regulation contains loopholes, such as offsetting flexibility and reliance on forest biomass, that undermine climate goals. The organization recommends removing offsetting mechanisms, preventing double counting between national inventories and corporate claims under the Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF), limiting forest harvesting for bioenergy, and strengthening synergies between LULUCF targets and the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) and Nature Restoration Law.