What do camels, whales and breast-fed babies have in common? They’ve all been put forward as ways to offset emissions. We delve into some of the weirdest carbon crediting ideas and explain why they do not work for the climate.
Biodiversity markets are meant to channel private sector funding towards schemes that aim to conserve and restore biodiversity. In its current form, the unregulated funding schemes are reminiscent of the voluntary carbon market, which has a track record of supplying poor quality, cheap credits that inadequately transfer funds to the Global South.
Aware of the impact of the games on the climate and of record temperatures on the games, organisers of the Paris games have pledged to break records when it comes to reducing the impact of this mega event on the planet. ‘Going for Green’, a Carbon Market Watch and éclaircies report assessing the credibility of these plans reveals that if completely implemented, only 30% of the expected carbon footprint is covered by a robust climate strategy.
Carbon Market Watch strongly condemns the SBTi Board of Trustees’ announcement to recognise carbon credits as a way to “abate” scope 3 emissions. These indirect, value chain emissions usually make up the lion’s share of a company’s carbon footprint.
A new report by Carbon Market Watch has raised concerns over a lack of transparency and accountability within the unregulated voluntary carbon market caused by the unavailability of important project documents from the four biggest carbon crediting standards.
Is offsetting fine if it is done with highly durable carbon removal credits? Sabine Frank weighs the pros and cons.
Human rights violations committed against the Chong people in Cambodia are indicative of a wider malaise afflicting carbon crediting projects. Not only must the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities be safeguarded, they must also profit from fair benefit sharing arrangements.
The first carbon credits issued under the UN’s CORSIA offsetting scheme will do nothing to bring down the aviation sector’s sky high emissions.
Motivated by a desire to keep down the cost of achieving its climate targets, the EU has failed to rule out the double counting of emissions reductions under its Carbon Removals Certification Framework. By so doing it is undermining established standards and its own policies.
Stay in touch and receive our monthly newsletter, campaign updates, event invites and more.
