Carbon registry Verra has launched a new rulebook for generating carbon credits from the early phase-out of coal power plants that are replaced with cleaner energy sources.
Carbon credit projects using the methodology will aim to monetise emissions avoided through the retirements of plants ahead of schedule. The sale of offsets will help compensate coal plant owners for the money they miss out on by not keeping the plants running and selling the electricity and offer a new financial incentive for operators, according to the backers of the scheme.
While no such carbon-offset funded closures currently exist, the US-based philanthropy Rockefeller Foundation – which led the development of the rulebook – hopes to sign up 60 coal power plants to the scheme by 2030.
Joseph Curtin, managing director for power and climate at The Rockefeller Foundation, said that “we are closer than ever to unlocking new benefits to people with credits that will help communities transition to clean, affordable energy”.
Solar squeeze: US tariffs threaten panel production and jobs in Thailand
But some climate experts have raised doubts over the suitability of tapping into carbon markets to fund the transition from coal and over the integrity of the carbon credits generated.
The methodology does not require project developers to replace all the coal power generating capacity retired and gives them the option of switching to biomass, which has been criticised for its potential negative climate and environmental impact.
Will O’Sullivan, policy advisor at E3G, said that offsets may play a role in finding the money to phase out coal power globally by 2040 but they’re unlikely to be “a silver bullet for an issue that’s fundamentally political”.
“Credits also rest on accurately predicting future emissions, a question this methodology does not fully address,” he added.
‘Just transition’ plans
The scheme’s supporters say the projects will put in place clear safeguards for people affected by the switch away from coal power.
Mandy Rambharos used to work for South African electricity company Eskom, leading its work transitioning away from coal power. Now Verra’s CEO, she said the methodology “empowers energy providers to make that shift in a way that doesn’t leave workers or communities behind and doesn’t inadvertently exacerbate energy poverty”.
Project developers will have to submit a plan for a ‘just transition’ detailing, for example, how coal workers will be offered compensation, training or new job opportunities.
But money for these activities will not come from the carbon market. Project developers will instead need to find other funders – including governments, philanthropies or private or public banks – willing to provide grants or loans equal to at least 2% of the revenue expected from the sale of carbon credits issued by the project.
A spokesperson for Verra said this approach ensures that funding is in place “when it is needed” in the planning and implementation stages and is not subject to changing market values for the carbon credits.
Faltering coal phaseout
Coal remains the leading source of electricity generation and the biggest single contributor to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions globally with most coal-fired power plants in China.
But no electricity should be produced from unabated coal power plants by 2040 if the world is to meet the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to under 1.5C, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
Starting from 2021, some coal-reliant nations – Indonesia, Vietnam and South Africa – have been involved in multi-billion-dollar Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) with rich nations in an attempt to accelerate their shift towards cleaner energy sources.
But the programmes have faced multiple challenges delaying their implementation. The latest setback came in March 2025 when US President Donald Trump pulled American support for the initiative.
Carbon credits have long been touted as a potential alternative source of funding for the costly coal switch-off, but the idea has never been tested.
Climate and environmental concerns
Environmental groups previously raised concerns over the use of offsetting mechanisms to finance the retirement of coal plants. They claimed that uncertainties in the calculation of the emission reductions risk generating an excessive number of credits that could ultimately undermine global climate ambition.
A New Climate Institute report last year said it is difficult to predict how long – and at what intensity – coal plants would have kept running for if they had not shut down early by carbon offset sellers.
Verra’s new methodology will apply to grid-connected coal power plants that began construction before the end of 2021 and are locked into a long-term purchase agreement for the electricity produced.
The projects need to pair the phased-out coal capacity with new renewable energy, replacing at least 40% of the generating capacity displaced. That could mean, for example, putting solar panels on the same site of the coal plant or buying renewable electricity from other operators on the market.
“To ensure the highest integrity, beneficiaries of the credits should be able to prove that renewables have directly and incontrovertibly replaced lost coal capacity, rather than being incidental to the replacement”, said E3G’s O’Sullivan.
The methodology offers a list of power sources including solar, wind and hydro, but also biomass power plants which produce energy by burning wood, crops or organic waste.
In certain cases, biomass plants can produce more carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per unit of energy than coal plants because fuel like wood needs to be burned in higher volumes, according to separate research by Ember and the US-based Partnership for Policy Integrity.
Rockefeller Foundation is working with partners on a first pilot project based on the methodology that would see the closure of the South Luzon coal power plant in the Philippines ten years ahead of its planned closure, replacing it with solar and wind power combined with battery storage.
The project could avoid up to 19 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions – similar to one year’s emissions from the whole of Ghana – according to an assessment commissioned by the Rockefeller Foundation and ACEN, the plant’s operator.
The post First carbon credit scheme for early coal plant closures unveiled appeared first on Climate Home News.
First carbon credit scheme for early coal plant closures unveiled
SYDNEY, Thursday 30 October 2026 — In response to reports that the Albanese government is set to introduce draft legislation this year that would seek to ban data centres in Australia’s suburbs, Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“These reports are a testament to the growing community opposition to these completely inappropriate AI factories that have sprung up across our suburbs, and Big Tech corporations should take heed — the data centre build-out must not happen without the endorsement of the Australian people.
“But the government can’t simply ship this problem out to regional Australia without addressing the fundamental issues with this extractive new industry.
“We’re already seeing a trend of AI data centre proposals moving to the regions, in areas that are more water-scarce, more environmentally sensitive, and next to sources of fracked and coal seam gas to support their massive BYO gas-fired power plans — a pattern we’ve seen play out in the United States.
“From the Beetaloo Basin in the NT to the Western Downs in Qld, we’re seeing a wave of AI data centre proposals that would see new gas fast-tracked to support their massive energy demand, and threaten to completely derail Australia’s energy transition.
“Just as suburban Australians are asking, “what for?”, regional communities like Berry Springs and Dalby do not want dirty data centres setting up shop with absolutely no benefit to their communities. Greenpeace is calling for a moratorium on AI data centre developments until strict and enforceable safeguards are in place to protect our climate and our communities.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on +61 406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
AI data centre ban in suburbs would not address fundamental issues: Greenpeace
In the thick of the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan in 2024, the UN climate talks were rattled by what can only be described as a major PR disaster. The BBC, Reuters and The Guardian all carried headlines, attributed to leading climate policy experts, that the COPs were “no longer fit for purpose”.
The articles outlined a series of reforms called for in an open letter signed by 22 eminent scientists and politicians, including a former UN secretary-general and previous UN climate chief, with a further 150 lending their support. The headlines shook confidence in the COP process, just as governments were wrestling over a new climate finance goal.
The Club of Rome – which handled the media relations for the letter – hurried to say that its “constructive, supportive ideas” had been “misinterpreted”. Negotiators kept calm(ish) and carried on, in the end landing the finance goal after some high-stakes drama on the final day.
-
Early speakers’ list suggests few powerful leaders will attend COP31
Just 77 heads of state or government are scheduled to address the COP31 climate summit in Antalya, a third less than the COP28 peak -
Africa wants adaptation finance on COP31 agenda, raising risk of a fight
The African Group wants dedicated space on tripling adaptation finance, the Green Climate Fund and trade, setting up a possible clash
To my surprise, when I went back this week to read the letter again, I could not find the offending line about the COPs not being fit for purpose. The Club of Rome has yet to respond to my query about its disappearance.
Whatever happened to the wording, that sentiment has been widely shared. COPs have ballooned in size while the importance of their outcomes seems to have diminished since the 2015 Paris Agreement (with the exception of the 2023 COP in Dubai where countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems).
The same on the surface
Two years on from those painful headlines in Baku, has anything changed for the better? You might be forgiven for thinking not. Official decisions are still made by consensus rather than the majority voting some have called for to stop blockers.
Tens of thousands of officials, activists and business execs still scurry around the halls to an ever-growing list of side events, roundtables and dialogues, while deals still come down to rows, all-nighters and jargon-filled texts adopted to rounds of applause.
But it would not be true to say that COPs have completely failed to respond to the very real need to translate the words of the Paris Agreement into action in the outside world.
Global warming is projected to be around 1.3C lower this century than it would have been if the world had not committed to tackle the climate crisis under that accord. Developing countries have a valued space at COPs in which their voices have equal weight in decision-making, unlike in many other international fora. And most importantly, perhaps, there has been a subtle shift, tipping the balance away from negotiating towards doing.
Brazil branded last year’s summit in Belém as the “COP of Implementation”, corralling the sprawling Action Agenda into six axes. This was a bid to impose some structure on the mushrooming efforts between governments, UN agencies, cities, businesses and civil society to set targets and spur faster results on their pet issues, from methane emissions to health and adaptation in conflict zones. COP30 alone saw the launch of 120 “plans to accelerate solutions”.
COP30 roadmaps off the cuff
Meanwhile, as the formal negotiations drew to a close, it was clear that consensus decision-making was evolving into something a little more improvised.
With only around half of all countries on board with the idea of a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels, COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago announced his team would put one together over the coming year, along with another on how to meet a global goal to halt deforestation by 2030. Those roadmaps will be launched next week, presented and discussed at COP31, though it’s still unclear whether or how they’ll be incorporated into the formal negotiating agenda.
Some leading policy-makers don’t think that matters too much. Speaking to journalists before the Antalya summit, COP30 CEO Ana Toni and Dutch climate minister Stientje van Veldhoven said “coalitions of the willing” can move ahead without needing consensus from the COPs. This, they said, was evident this year at the first global conference on TAFF, co-chaired by van Veldhoven and attended by 60 countries.
“Consensus or no-consensus in the general COP doesn’t make a difference for the choices I have to make in my country to get my country to phase out fossil fuels,” said the Dutch minister. The Netherlands recently became one of the first to publish a national TAFF plan.
COP31 banks on flagship voluntary initiatives
This thinking has permeated the management and expected outcomes of this year’s COP too. Earlier this year, Türkiye, supported by international energy agencies, floated the idea of a voluntary goal to boost electrification to 35% of the world’s final energy consumption by 2035 – and this is now being touted as one of the main results to be expected from Antalya.
Türkiye is also championing a pledge on AI and climate, while co-host Australia is pushing to ease access to climate finance for least developed countries and small island states.
COP31 presidency announces AI pledge as UN climate chief says Big Tech ‘on thin ice’
None of these needs consensus. But with a political cover decision already in the works, as trailed by the COP presidents, they – and perhaps the fossil fuel roadmap – may find a home in the official text if language acceptable to most can be found, giving them them additional weight.
UNFCCC reform process in the shadows
Formal reform is underway too, if quietly. UN climate chief Simon Stiell is leading a review informed by ongoing consultations with a group of 15 well-respected climate policy experts, three of whom signed the open letter in 2024.
Among them is leading Swedish climate and sustainability scientist Johan Rockström who has strong ideas about how to make COPs function better, including a switch to majority voting. He told the same press briefing nothing stands in the way of this, because the rules of procedure for making decisions at COPs have never been formally agreed.
Still, to get away from the default setting of consensus would require agreement on a new system that may be impossible to achieve given the rise in bullying tactics by fossil fuel heavyweights.
Comment: The UN climate process was built for negotiation – now it must support implementation
The deliberations with the high-level policy gurus, as reflected in a summary of June’s session in Bonn, largely echo what’s already happening organically, calling for stronger partnerships and accountability both in and between the Action Agenda and negotiations. It doesn’t mention voting.
A general overview of the reform exercise says that “improving and optimizing the [UN climate] process over the medium to long term… will be critical to fostering trust, enhancing collaboration, and catalyzing increased ambition”.
In the short term, don’t hold your breath for anything concrete on reform at COP31 but watch for signs in what ends up dominating the headlines from Türkiye.
The post Editor’s Desk: COP reform is happening quietly, behind the headlines appeared first on Climate Home News.
Editor’s Desk: COP reform is happening quietly, behind the headlines
With the COP31 climate summit in Turkey looming, all eyes are on China to see what the country will push for in the negotiations.
At COP30 last year, China helped to secure a “dialogue” on climate-related “unilateral trade measures”, as well as a two-year “work programme” concerning climate finance.
The nation also championed south-south cooperation throughout the conference and co-led a summit on methane, alongside Brazil and the UK.
In a recent press conference, China’s environment vice-minister Li Gao noted the need to “uphold multilateralism” and send a “clear political signal” that the global community is united around climate action.