Fossil fuel companies are aiming to profit from a new United Nations’ carbon market by selling carbon credits linked to gas-fired power plants they have already built.
At the Cop28 climate summit last December, governments agreed to set up a new global carbon credit market under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement – and a host of fossil fuel firms and their middlemen are now trying to cash in by making their projects eligible for trading.
Developers applied for thousands of projects to be transferred over from the old discredited Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to the new market that will be established, before the deadline of January 1 this year.
Most of these projects are for renewable energy – which, while good for the climate, have stirred debate. Critics argue that they do not need additional funding from selling carbon credits because they are profitable without it.
However, more controversial are ten projects Climate Home News has identified, based largely in Asia, which backed the construction of power plants that run on natural gas, one of the fossil fuels governments agreed to transition away from at Cop28.
If approved by their host nations, the projects would transfer more than 10 million old gas-linked credits – equivalent to the reduction of 10 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions a year – to the new Paris carbon market.
“These projects are entirely inappropriate,” said Carbon Market Watch researcher Jonathan Crook. “Some were registered as far back as 2009. It’s unreasonable to assume they expected to rely on revenue from a new market mechanism in 2024 – not to mention that these projects may lock in fossil fuel emissions and infrastructure for years to come, among other issues.”
Clean, cheap or fair – which countries should pump the last oil and gas?
The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market was set up in 2021 in a bid to ensure that carbon credits deliver on the emissions reductions they have promised and have a positive impact for the climate. In its categorisation of different types of carbon credit, offsets issued for gas-fired power plants are given the worst ranking.
Similarly, BeZero, a ratings agency for carbon credit projects, looked at three of the CDM gas projects that have applied for transfer to the new market. It gave them a ‘C’ grade, meaning they “provide a very low likelihood” of reducing emissions by as much as they claim.
It cited the “minimal impact” of carbon credit revenues on the project’s overall financial situation and the risk of methane leaks from gas infrastructure that would make the projects more polluting than asserted.
Chinese gas-fired plant
The biggest project is a gas-fired power plant built by China’s state-owned oil and gas company CNOOC and Japanese conglomerate Mitsubishi in 2010 in the province of Fujian, China, just across the sea from Taiwan.
To fire the plant’s four turbines, CNOOC and Mitsubishi imported gas from an Indonesian gas field called Tangguh, which they both had stakes in, through the CNOOC-owned Fujian gas import terminal.
In addition to the income they received from selling the gas, importing it through the terminal and then selling the electricity it produced, they also submitted an application to the CDM to develop and sell carbon credits linked to the plant.
By their own calculations, the plant would emit 2.3 million tonnes of CO2 a year when fully operational. But if they didn’t build it, they said the electricity would come from coal, emitting over 5.3 million tonnes of CO2 a year. So they claimed credits for reducing the amount of CO2 that would have entered the atmosphere by an annual 3 million tonnes.
Justifying this assumption, they said that oil was too expensive and zero-carbon alternatives were not viable as an alternative. Most of Fujian’s hydropower potential had already been tapped, while wind power was “just start-up” and “of seasonal nature”, they added. They did not even mention solar power – now the cheapest electricity source.
However, coal’s main competitors in the province are not gas but nuclear and hydro, power sources that do not emit greenhouse gases. Wind power has also grown rapidly in the province since the gas-fired plant was built.
Lauri Myllyvirta, a senior fellow with the Asia Society Policy Institute, told Climate Home: “The premise that power generation growth would come from coal if a new fossil gas plant wasn’t built was never true and certainly is not true today.”
Mitsubishi withdrew from the carbon credit project in 2022. While CNOOC remains involved, the main project participant is now a company called Europe New Energy Investment Capital, run by a Chinese citizen called Dongquan Yang.
A spokesperson for CNOOC said the project “is out of the scope of CNOOC Limited’s business operations”. Asked how that was compatible with CNOOC Fujian Gas Power Co., Ltd being listed as an authorised participant, the spokesperson did not reply.
Indian carbon-credit developer
Fossil fuel firms are not the only ones trying to monetise carbon offsets from existing gas power plants. Documents show that Indian company EnKing – which has since changed its name to EKI Energy Services Ltd and claims to be the world’s biggest developer of carbon credits – is involved in three of the Indian gas power projects identified.
Last August, Climate Home revealed that EnKing vastly overestimated the benefits of carbon offsets linked to cookstoves in rural India and helped sell those junk credits to oil and gas giant Shell.
Cooking the books: cookstove offsets produce millions of fake emission cuts
Working with fossil fuel companies, EnKing used a methodology (AM0025), under the old Clean Development Mechanism, to derive credits from the building of gas-fired power plants in India.
The successor to this methodology is still technically up and running – but Verra, one of the main international carbon credit verifiers, has declared it inactive due to lack of use.
According to Crook of Carbon Market Watch, it is “extremely unlikely” that this type of methodology will be applicable under Article 6.4, which will govern the new UN carbon market when it launches. EnKing did not reply to a request for comment.
‘Not good practice’
To oversee the new carbon market, governments have agreed to set up an Article 6.4 supervisory body, made up of government climate negotiators. But the rules agreed for it so far offer little power to reject old CDM credits from gas-fired power plants.
The host countries of those projects – including China and India – could refuse to authorise them, but they could still be sold, branded as “mitigation contribution units” under Article 6.4.
These are a lower class of carbon credit agreed at Cop27 which do not require authorisation by the host country as it does not need to do a “corresponding adjustment” for them, which means wiping the credits’ emissions reductions from its accounts.
Carbon credits talks collapse at Cop28 over integrity concerns
Mitigation contribution units cannot be counted towards national emissions goals set under the UN climate process, but they can be bought by companies and used for other purposes. That means the firms trying to sell carbon credits from old gas power stations just need to find buyers to make a profit.
Crook said such deals “wouldn’t be good practice”. “Retiring these credits paradoxically rewards fossil fuel companies for locking in emissions,” he added.
The post Fossil fuel firms seek UN carbon market cash for old gas plants appeared first on Climate Home News.
Fossil fuel firms seek UN carbon market cash for old gas plants
Even measures designed to help, like air conditioning, can create vicious cycles that lead to hotter temps.
It’s about to get hotter in our nation’s cities. Just how hot it gets depends not only on the weather, but also on infrastructure, working conditions and ZIP codes.
The Turkish government has announced the dates and venues for the COP31 leaders’ summit and pre-COP meetings, and appointed a Turkish waste campaigner and Australian cattle farmer as climate “champions”.
In an open letter, published by the UN climate body on Tuesday, the Turkish environment minister and COP31 President-Designate Murat Kurum said the COP31 World Leaders’ Summit, at which dozens of heads of government are expected, will take place in Antalya, on Türkiye’s south coast, on November 11 and 12.
Previous leaders’ summits have taken place on the first two days of the COP negotiations or, at last year’s conference in Belém, before the start. But this year’s gathering will take place on the third and fourth day (Wednesday and Thursday) of the November 9-20 talks. Kurum said the summit “will be a key moment in generating political momentum and visibility for COP31”.
Last November, when Türkiye was chosen as host of the annual UN climate summit, Kurum said that, while the negotiations would be in the resort city of Antalya, the leaders’ summit would take place in the country’s largest city Istanbul. No explanation for the change of decision was given in Kurum’s letter.
Pacific pre-COP
Every COP conference is preceded by a smaller pre-COP gathering, attended by government climate negotiators. Because of a deal struck with Australia, which gave up its bid to physically host the summit in exchange for leading the COP31 discussions, this year’s pre-COP will take place on the Pacific island of Fiji, with a “leaders’ event” a 2.5-hour flight north in Tuvalu.
Kurum’s letter said both events would take place between October 5-8 and “will contribute to reflecting diverse perspectives in an inclusive manner”.
-
Türkiye prioritises cleaning up garbage emissions in COP31 ‘action agenda’
‘Zero Waste’ is the personal project of Turkish First Lady Emine Erdogan and aims to cut emissions from landfills and waste disposal -
COP31 chief slams climate backsliding, but rejects priority focus on fossil fuels
After a first COP31 strategy meeting, Türkiye’s environment minister says he will “safeguard the development priorities” of developing countries
The letter confirms that Australia’s climate and energy minister, Chris Bowen, will be given the title of “President of Negotiations” and “will have exclusive authority in leading the COP31 Negotiations, in consultation with Türkiye”.
“I have complete faith in his work,” said Kurum, adding that the two will send out a joint letter “in the coming weeks” which outlines their priorities regarding the negotiations.
The COP negotiations will be discussed at the annual Petersberg Climate Dialogue in Berlin on April 21 and 22. German State Secretary Jochen Flasbarth recently announced plans to travel to Australia and meet with Bowen to discuss the talks.
COP31 champions
In his letter, Kurum announced that Samed Ağırbaş, president of Türkiye’s Zero Waste Foundation, which was set up by the country’s First Lady, has been appointed as the COP31 Climate High-Level Champion, tasked with working with business, cities and regions and civil society to promote climate action.
Sally Higgins, a young Australian cattle farmer and sustainability consultant who has also carried out research on land-use change, has been appointed as Youth Climate Champion. Kurum said she “is a passionate advocate for climate change and elevating the voices of young people”.
Turkish officials Fatma Varank, Halil Hasar and Mehmet Ali Kahraman have been appointed as COP31 CEO, Chief Climate Diplomacy Officer and Director of the COP31 Presidency Office respectively. Deputy environment ministers Ömer Bulut and Burak Demiralp will lead on construction and infrastructure, and operational and logistical processes.
Kurum said Türkiye’s Presidency would continue to use the Troika approach – a term coined two years ago under Azerbaijan’s COP29 Presidency, which worked with the previous Emirati COP28 and subsequent Brazilian COP30 hosts.
Kurum said the Troika approach offers “stability and predictability by connecting past, current and future presidencies” and that “in this regard” Türkiye and Australia would work “in close cooperation with Azerbaijan and Brazil”. This appears to overlook the 2027 COP32 host – Ethiopia.
The post Türkiye sets COP31 dates and appoints Australian cattle farmer as youth champion appeared first on Climate Home News.
Türkiye sets COP31 dates and appoints Australian cattle farmer as youth champion
Mae Buenaventura is the manager of the debt justice programme of the Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development, a regional alliance of peoples’ movements, community organizations, coalitions, NGOs and networks
A potentially historic shift in public debt governance is set to unfold in Washington DC this week as Global South governments take a collective stand to stop a “silent killer” of development financing.
The first-ever UN-hosted borrowers’ forum will officially be launched on April 15 on the sidelines of the 2026 Spring Meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Led by five convening countries – Zambia, Egypt, Nepal, the Maldives and Pakistan – the initiative is one of the key wins of last year’s 4th Financing for Development Conference (FFD4) in Sevilla, Spain.
The forum’s mandate is to establish a platform for borrower countries, supported by a UN secretariat, “to discuss technical issues, share information and experiences in addressing debt challenges, increase access to technical assistance and capacity-building in debt management, coordinate approaches and strengthen borrower countries’ voices in the global debt architecture”.
Instead of facing lenders alone, these countries will now use a UN-backed platform to share technical expertise and coordinate their approach to a global debt system that is fundamentally broken.
Debt grips climate-vulnerable nations
The human cost of the current debt architecture is staggering. According to the UN trade and development agency, UNCTAD, more than 40% of the global population – roughly 3.4 billion people – live in countries where the government is forced to spend more on debt payments than on the health, education and social protection of its citizens.
In so-called low-income countries, governments spend an average of 7.5% of their total budgets on debt service, with interest payments consuming up to 20% of total government revenue in these regions.
The Philippines is a case study in this financial stranglehold. It is part of a global majority forced to watch its public services crumble and infrastructure lag while its wealth is siphoned off to satisfy foreign lenders.
The policy of automatic appropriations – a legacy of the rule of late former President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. – mandates that debt servicing takes precedence over any other public expenditure, effectively placing the demands of lenders above the needs of the Filipino people. Even as it faces a $1.5 trillion regional financing gap to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030, its hands remain tied by a legal framework that values credit ratings over human lives.
-
GEF raises $3.9bn ahead of funding deadline, $1bn below previous budget
Amid aid cuts, donor governments pledge less nature and climate funding to the Global Environment Facility (GEF), with the four-year package to be finalised in late May -
Charging worries, high prices put brakes on EV growth in Bangladesh
Sales of e-bikes and rickshaws are up amid queues at fuel stations, but a lack of charging infrastructure and high prices still deter many Bangladeshis from going electric
As a “middle-income country” (MIC), the Philippines is stuck in a frustrating purgatory. It is often deemed “too wealthy” for the G20’s debt-relief framework, yet too poor to absorb global economic shocks. Last year, Finance Undersecretary Joven Balbosa hit the nail on the head when he called for support that goes “beyond the simplistic income categorization” that ignores a country’s actual vulnerabilities.
Without an inclusive and equitable global debt architecture, nations including the Philippines are left to navigate catastrophic climate risks and economic shocks with zero fiscal breathing space.
No respite during climate disasters
The regional evidence of this systemic failure is everywhere. Take Pakistan, which in 2022 was hit by catastrophic flooding that submerged a third of the country and caused billions in losses. Despite this climate-driven disaster, World Bank data shows that Pakistan made payments in 2023 of $11.8 billion for public and publicly guaranteed (PPG) external debt, while its PPG external debt reached $93 billion that same year, surpassing pre-pandemic debt of $87 billion (2020).
Sri Lanka followed IMF prescriptions throughout 16 lending programs since 1991, only to become the first Asian country this century to default. Its MIC status prevents application for debt relief and restructuring measures. Today, the Sri Lankan people bear the brunt of harsh conditionalities, including raising VAT from 8% to 15%, slashing food and fuel subsidies, and the erosion of hard-earned worker pensions.
Currently, the global rules of lending and borrowing are set by a “creditors’ club” composed of the IMF, the World Bank and the Global Sovereign Debt Roundtable it set up, and the Paris Club.
These institutions measure “debt sustainability” through a narrow lens of a country’s capacity to make timely repayments. They largely ignore internal economic inequalities, gender disparities and the existential threat of climate change.
Crises should trigger debt service cancellation
By organising the new borrowers’ forum, the Global South is signalling that the era of passive “standard-setting” by lenders is over.
The ultimate goal for global civil society and debt justice movements is the establishment of a UN Debt Convention; a democratic, binding and inclusive framework that governs both lenders and borrowers. This mechanism would ensure that debt restructuring and cancellation are sufficient to allow countries to fulfill their international human rights obligations and implement necessary climate actions.
Green Climate Fund picks locations for five developing country hubs
To be truly transformative, debt sustainability analyses must align with human rights and sustainable development needs. This means conducting impact assessments – both before and after loans are issued – to identify “illegitimate” debts that do not benefit the public.
Crucially, we need an automatic debt service cancellation mechanism that triggers during extreme climatic, environmental or health shocks. We also need a binding global debt registry to ensure that every loan is transparent and subject to public scrutiny.
Whether the borrowers’ forum becomes a true milestone depends on its courage to challenge the status quo. We can no longer allow debt to act as a “silent killer” of our future. It is time to demand a financial system that serves humanity, not just the balance sheets of the powerful.
The post Broken debt system must be fixed to confront future climate shocks appeared first on Climate Home News.
Broken debt system must be fixed to confront future climate shocks
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits