Alarm bells for the climate were set off last week by a leak of the European Commission’s proposal for a Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF). The draft leaves many important questions unanswered and vital issues unaddressed, and could usher in an era of greenwashed and money-wasting carbon removals.
A proposed carbon offsetting project in Papua New Guinea, which has been labelled a “scam” by a local politician, appears to be of questionable environmental benefit and has seemingly failed to consult with local communities sufficiently and transparently, a Carbon Market Watch analysis concludes.
A “Draft Consensus Statement on High Quality Tropical Forest Carbon Credits” was recently developed by eight organisations: Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin (COICA), Conservation International, Environmental Defense Fund, Amazonian Environmental Research Institute (IPAM), the Nature Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Society, World Resources Institute, and World Wildlife Fund US. Once finalised, the document …
Carbon Market Watch response to Verra’s public consultation on creating a long-term reversal monitoring system for detecting reversals in VCS projects during the post-crediting period.
CARBON MARKET WATCH’S FACT-CHECK OF VERRA’S RESPONSE A new investigation by Carbon Market Watch and the Latin American Center for Investigative Journalism (CLIP) has found that two large-scale forestry projects in Colombia create more credits than the amount of emission reductions that they are achieving. Fossil fuel companies use these credits to avoid paying a …
Read more “Companies use ”hot air” forestry offsets to avoid taxes in Colombia”
Read the guide in Spanish Update 1 July: Verra published a statement in response to this report, questioning its findings and accusing it of using flawed methodologies. Our response to Verra is available here. Executive summary The Colombian government adopted a carbon tax of approximately US$5/tCO2e covering fossil fuels in 2016. Companies can avoid paying …
An NGO statement on forests in voluntary carbon markets Summary Forest protection and restoration is in urgent need of increased financial support, but cannot be used to offset fossil emissions Financial contributions should be directed at jurisdictional programs addressing deforestation and forest degradation, rather than stand-alone projects, as they provide incentives for improved land use …
Read more “Recommendations on forests in voluntary carbon markets”
This letter was sent to President of the European Commission von der Leyen, Executive Vice-President Timmermans, Commissioner Simson, Commissioner Sinkevičus , Minister Matos Fernandes, MEP Guteland and other Members of the European Parliament, and Members of Coreper II. Forest restoration must not offset climate inaction in the agriculture, energy, housing, industrial and transport sectors. Yesterday …
Read more “Letter to not offset climate inaction with forests”
Carbon Market Watch (CMW) supports increasing the climate ambition of the LULUCF Regulation so it can promote climate action while providing much-needed co-benefits in other environmental fields (especially biodiversity and restoration of ecosystems). CMW also supports the feedback from Climate Action Network Europe and Fern. Read full response
Scroll down for French and Spanish Companies are increasingly adopting “climate-neutrality” targets, which often include relying on forests to compensate for pollution. After yet another such offset project was swallowed by flames in California, unresolved questions about forest and land offsets resurface. It’s a simple tagline for green marketing campaigns: “Enjoy our product, it’s climate …
Read more “Up in smoke – California fires once again highlight dangers of forest offsets “
Stay in touch and receive our monthly newsletter, campaign updates, event invites and more.
