Showing all results

Letters
3 Nov 2017

Carbon Market Watch recommendations for COP23

Dear Respected Colleague, Carbon Market Watch is pleased to share our SBSTA, SBI, and APA recommendations as well as an overview of our upcoming events and recent publications (below). Phase out Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) To reach the objectives of the Paris Agreement, it is essential to learn from past experience avoid the mistakes made with…

Letters
17 Jun 2015

Letter to Commissioner Arias Cañete in view of European Commission consultation on Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF)

Dear Commissioner Arias Cañete,
The European Commission has consulted stakeholders about the role the EU’s land and forests should play in its 2030 Climate and Energy Framework. With this letter, the undersigned organisations are registering their views and state that Option 1 (LULUCF pillar), is their preferred option since it is the only one that could uphold the environmental and social integrity of the EU’s target. They call on the EU to have a clear position ahead of Paris on the need for two distinct global goals, one for LULUCF and another for other emissions, including non CO2 emissions from agriculture.

At the European Summit in October 2014, Heads of State agreed that, by 2030, the EU will domestically reduce its emissions by at least 40 per cent compared to 1990. In the run up to the United Nations climate summit in Paris, the EU should continue to show leadership to tackle climate change by upholding the environmental integrity of the ‘at least 40 per cent’ target. We believe that unless the following points are addressed, the EU is at risk not only of backsliding on its ambition and harming its credibility in this crucial year for climate, but it could entail damaging impacts on biodiversity and local communities.

Letters
28 May 2010

Comments on Validation of the Reforestation as Renewable Source of Wood Supplies for Industrial Use in Brazil, Version 03a

After careful consideration of the PDD in the given time, we conclude that if approved, this project would lead to an excess issuance of Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs) of beyond any actual emissions reductions and therefore must not be validated for a number of significant concerns.