- What timeline options were delegates debating?
- How did the timeline discussions unfold?
- What were the main points of disagreement?
- Why is the IPCC in a ‘serious funding crisis’?
- How have scientists reacted?
- What other issues remain unresolved?
- How are the IPCC AR7 reports progressing?
- How might the IPCC use AI and enhance gender inclusivity?
Shell has avoided paying compensation for nearly 2 million sham carbon credits it supported in China, as registry Verra has been unable to hold the world’s largest offsets buyer to account for the scandal.
Verra told Climate Home the case is “unprecedented”, but it raises questions over the leading carbon standard’s ability to enforce its rules and guarantee integrity in the ailing voluntary carbon market – especially when critical decisions concern a dominant player like Shell.
The energy giant was closely involved in ten carbon offsetting programmes that aimed to slash methane gas released from rice paddies across eastern China. But, as Climate Home previously revealed, the carbon credits – which Shell partly used to justify sales of “carbon neutral” liquefied natural gas (LNG) – failed to cut planet-heating emissions as claimed.
After identifying serious issues and cancelling the projects in late August 2024, Verra informed a Shell subsidiary in China that the meaningless credits would need to be compensated.
So far, however, the carbon standard has been unable to claw back any of the 1.8 million credits generated by the ten projects, which were primarily used by Shell to offset real greenhouse gas emissions created by its vast fossil fuel operations. Other users of the phantom rice-farming credits include Chinese state-owned fossil fuel firm PetroChina, Singapore-based DBS Bank and UK energy supplier OVO Energy.
Hit-and-run
While the projects were originally set up by a small Chinese agritech firm called Hefei Luyu, Shell acted as their “authorised representative” in dealings with Verra, assuming “all applicable rights and responsibilities” equivalent to those of the project developer. Climate Home understands that both Hefei Luyu and Shell should have been on the hook for paying back the over-issued credits.
One of the agreements between Hefei Luyu and Shell
But on September 11 last year – less than two weeks after Verra’s compensation order – Hefei Luyu and Shell ended their agreement, enabling the fossil fuel multinational to abruptly abandon the projects.
Verra told Climate Home that “any business arrangements between the representative and the project proponent fall outside Verra’s purview to oversee or enforce”.
Commenting on the case, Danny Cullenward, a lawyer and climate economist at the University of Pennsylvania, said exiting the agreement does not relieve Shell of its past obligations. Those include being responsible for any potentially “false, fraudulent or misleading statements” made to Verra in the course of Shell’s work as the proxy project proponent, added Cullenward who analysed the project documents.
But, as yet, Verra has taken no action against Shell. In contrast, the carbon credit registry sanctioned Hefei Luyu after the Chinese company failed to reply to Verra’s emails and compensate for the credits. Hefei Luyu cannot hold an account on the platform or register new projects until compensation is delivered.
“Pathetic” – New Zealand plans to barely cut emissions between 2030 and 2035
Verra told Climate Home there is nothing more it can do against the Chinese firm, but added that it reserves the right to take further action in line with its rules, without providing further details on the potential measures. The registry has so far obtained compensation for 480,000 credits issued by other rice farming projects, unrelated to the Shell ones.
Cullenward said Verra had failed to explain why it cannot hold Shell accountable for the cancelled projects in China.
“If something in Verra’s internal rules prevents this outcome, Verra should identify and fix the loophole,” he added. “Otherwise it is practically begging to be defrauded in the future.”
Cullenward suggested that, even if Verra’s own rules prevent it from taking action in its registry system, the organisation could bring legal proceedings against Shell.
‘Rampant conflicts of interest’
Cullenward said the situation also illustrates the “rampant conflicts of interest inherent to unregulated carbon markets”.
Verra oversees carbon projects’ adherence to its rules, and has the power to suspend or cancel them – but it also relies heavily on the continued generation of new carbon credits to sustain its operations. Verra earns the vast majority of its income – close to 80% in 2023 – from charging a levy on each credit issued by its certified projects.
Shell is a dominant force in the carbon credit market, relying heavily on offsets to reach its climate targets to reduce emissions from its oil and gas operations. The energy company used 14.5 million credits in 2024 – nearly three times more than the second-largest buyer, Microsoft – according to data provider Allied Offsets.
“When they crack down on problematic practices, they hurt their own business prospects,” said Cullenward.
Shell announced on Thursday it had raised dividends paid to shareholders, despite a drop in profits in the fourth quarter of last year. At the same time, the firm has cut back investment in its clean energy division, which in 2024 amounted to seven times less than spending on oil and gas, according to analysis by campaigners at Global Witness.
In response to a request for comment from Climate Home, Shell repeated a statement it first made in August, which said the company was “disappointed to learn of the issues Verra identified with these [carbon] projects during their recent review” and indicated it would “continue to work closely with Verra to understand the impact of their findings”.
A Verra spokesperson told Climate Home that its system is working, as “Verra identified the issues with the projects and is following its quality control procedures to address them, including holding parties accountable for where they failed to conform to program rules and follow through on compensation”.
Verra is committed to “continual improvement” – and lessons learned from this case have been incorporated into “procedures that will substantially reduce the risk of these issues being repeated going forward”, the spokesperson added.
(Reporting by Matteo Civillini; editing by Megan Rowling)
The post Shell dodges paying compensation for sham carbon credits in China appeared first on Climate Home News.
Shell dodges paying compensation for sham carbon credits in China
Continue Reading
Climate Change
Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs
Three countries have been named by the Paris Agreement’s compliance committee for failing to submit a nationally determined contribution (NDC) and repeatedly snubbing offers of help with their climate plans.
After months of internal debate over whether to identify serial non-responders, the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee (PAICC) named the three countries which have failed to engage with it over their NDCs on Friday.
It named Democratic Republic of Congo, Senegal and North Korea in a footnote of its annual report, adding that it decided to name them “with a view to facilitating engagement”, adding that representatives of the three nations had been invited to its meeting in early 2027 “with the purpose of identifying any challenges and constraints”.
“The Committee noted the importance of Parties engaging with the Committee in a timely manner, while noting that some delays may be due to the national capabilities and circumstances of the Parties”, the report said.
In July, PAICC said 12 countries had ignored its repeated attempts to discuss why they had not published an NDC as required every five years under the 2015 Paris accord.
Members of the committee had been divided over whether to name them, but at a September meeting decided to do so in their annual report to the annual climate COP summit.
By the time the report was published on Friday, only Congo, Senegal and North Korea “had not communicated an NDC or submitted a [Biennial Transparency Report] and had not yet responded to any of the Committee’s notifications, despite several reminders issued by the Committee in this regard”.
Rainforest and renewable energy ambitions
The silence from Congo and Senegal is notable because the former is home to much of the Congo Basin rainforest while the latter has sought billions of dollars in climate finance to support its renewable energy ambitions.
After Brazil, Congo has more rainforest than any country in the world. This forest, and the country’s peatlands, absorb huge amounts of greenhouse gas but are fast being lost to expanding farmland, charcoal production, logging and mining.
Senegal signed a Just Energy Transition Partnership with Canada and wealthy European nations in 2023, to help it meet its renewable energy targets under the-then government of Macky Sall. It was chair of the Least Developed Countries group between January 2022 and December 2023.

Tejas Rao, who is researching the PAICC as part of a doctoral thesis at Cambridge University, said the governments of the three countries should engage with the committee.
“Engagement costs these governments very little and the committee has shown it will listen,” he said.
“Silence leaves the committee with no basis to help, and it leaves the [governments] exposed to the narrative that they are simply disengaged,” he told Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement requirement
The 2015 Paris Agreement requires all parties to publish an NDC every five years outlining their emissions reduction targets, with each plan meant to be more ambitious than the country’s last NDC.
The latest set – the third round of plans, with new targets for 2035 – was due in February 2025. While most countries missed this deadline, all but around 30 – mostly small emitters but including Egypt, Vietnam and Argentina – have now submitted them.
Over the year, the PAICC – which is made up of government climate officials from developed and developing countries – has been communicating with governments that have not submitted NDCs and trying to overcome barriers to them doing so.
Some nations have cited exceptional circumstances as the reason for not submitting an NDC, a process that requires a significant amount of work in tracking emissions and consulting on how to curb them across the economy. For example, a letter from a Sudanese official to the PAICC, seen by Climate Home News, said that the country’s civil war had led to the suspension of its NDC preparation.
The US and Iran are not signed up to the Paris Agreement and so do not have active NDCs, nor does Taiwan, which is not a UN member state.
Rao said that because the PAICC is “facilitative and non-punitive”, naming the countries “is meant to open a door, not close one – the invited consultation is the point”.
“In recent months, governments that explained their constraints, whether capacity, finance or domestic process, have been met with follow-up and support rather than sanction, and the number of silent governments has fallen sharply,” Rao said.
The post Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs appeared first on Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs
Climate Change
Q&A: Why a pivotal IPCC meeting in Ethiopia ended in ‘profound disappointment’
Countries have failed – for the sixth time running – to agree on the timeline for publishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) next set of influential reports.
The IPCC’s 65th session (IPCC-65) was seen by many to be the final opportunity for countries to agree on a schedule where its seventh assessment report (AR7) would be published in time for the UN’s second “global stocktake” of climate action.
Before last week’s meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, IPCC chair Prof Sir Jim Skea had warned that releasing the reports in time for the stocktake in 2028 would depend on a timelines being agreed by the end of 2026.
But the week-long meeting descended into fraught disagreements between governments, resulting in Skea “suspending” the talks on Friday evening with no decision made.
Countries were also unable to agree on the IPCC’s budget for the rest of the AR7 cycle, leaving the body with a “serious funding crisis”.
The IPCC has pledged to reconvene the meeting at the “earliest opportunity”; however, it has not yet given an indication of when this will be.
In his concluding remarks, Skea described the Addis Ababa summit as a “profound disappointment” and “among the most difficult IPCC meetings”, according to reporting from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB).
Some countries have reacted with dismay to the breakdown of negotiations, warning that a failure to have the IPCC’s latest assessments on climate adaptation and mitigation ready for the UN stocktaking exercise would undermine global climate action.
A climate envoy from a Pacific island state said it was a “travesty that a handful of countries continue to delay the IPCC’s reports – the science we need back home to help us save lives and livelihoods”.
Below, Carbon Brief explores the key developments, deb


