Yulia Indrawati Sari is a lecturer in international relations at Parahyangan Catholic University, in Bandung, Indonesia, specialising in environmental issues. Frans Siahaan is an independent consultant on environmental governance.
At COP29 in Baku, Indonesia made an ambitious pitch for its carbon market, with newly elected President Prabowo Subianto’s brother, Hashim Djojohadikusumo, leading the charge.
The delegation presented Indonesia as a global carbon trading powerhouse, signalling a dramatic shift from the previous administration’s caution. Prabowo has pledged to raise $65 billion by 2028 through carbon credit sales to fund reforestation and conservation.
With the official launch of international carbon trading in January 2025, Indonesia is positioning itself as a major supplier. But who will benefit from this booming market – and at what risk?
In a study seeking to answer this question, we applied a political economy approach to the forestry and land use sector. Our findings – published here for the first time – draw on interviews with carbon developers, government officials, palm oil representatives and civil society groups, conducted between November 2023 and October 2024, during the Jokowi administration.
Big business takes the lead
Indonesia, home to the world’s third-largest tropical rainforest, has long been a prime candidate for carbon trading. Large corporations, especially those in palm oil and timber, are seizing the opportunity, leveraging their vast land concessions to shift business models from exploitation to conservation.
Based on data from the Indonesian Forest Concession Holders Association (APHI), in November 2023, some of the 600 companies holding Forest Utilization Business Licenses have already started investing in carbon-related services. One industrial timber estate company plans to set aside 60% of its 130,000-hectare concession for carbon trading.
Brazil’s COP30 president: Climate summits must move from words to real action
With strong political and economic connections, these companies are actively acquiring forest concessions, merging firms, and lobbying the government to shape regulations in their favour. Industry associations such as APHI and the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KADIN) have pushed for policies that prioritise corporate interests. Yet their history of environmental destruction and Indigenous rights violations raises concerns about whether this shift is truly about emissions reductions – or just another revenue stream.
As one civil society representative working with Indigenous communities put it: “These companies see carbon trading purely as an economic transaction. Their approach is simple: ‘How much do you have? We’ll buy it.’ There’s no real discussion about emissions, climate justice, or Indigenous rights.”
Regulatory hurdles
Despite the enthusiasm, regulatory challenges remain. Companies are concerned that current policies make international carbon trading less attractive, particularly the emission reduction buffer requirement. Under Ministry Regulation No. 21/2022, companies must set aside 10–20% of their carbon credits as a buffer. Designed to safeguard against emissions loss from risks like fires and natural disasters, the buffer ensures credibility, but is viewed by companies as excessive.
“We already allocate 35% for risk management. With the government’s buffer, we’re left with only 45–55% of our credits to trade. The margin is just too tight,” said a representative from an international green investment firm entering the Indonesian market.
Most cookstove carbon credits ruled out of quality scheme in integrity push
Certification is another concern. Indonesia’s National Registry System for Climate Change Control (SRN PPI) is still underdeveloped and not yet ready to meet widely used global references, making the country’s carbon credits less competitive. The government has also chosen not to make mutual agreements with well-established certification bodies such as Verra or Gold Standard, further complicating credibility issues.
“The carbon trading regulations are still not clear. Although regulations exist, there is still a lack of clarity, especially in the technical processes. Almost all actors who care about the climate – not those in the timber and oil palm industries – are still taking a wait-and-see approach in the carbon market,” one green investor told us.
Risk of greenwashing
Several environmental NGOs have actively prepared to engage in carbon trading, with local organisation WARSI developing best practices for ensuring benefits reach communities. Through the Plan Vivo scheme, WARSI directs carbon revenues into village development and community benefit. The organisation has also created Forest Reference Emission Levels (FREL) to monitor deforestation reductions.
Despite such efforts, scepticism remains. Civil society groups such as the Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN), Greenpeace, the Indonesian Forum for the Environment (WALHI) and Forest Watch Indonesia have warned that carbon trading risks becoming a tool for greenwashing, allowing industries to continue polluting while buying credits to claim climate action on paper.
“The real winners in this market are those who already control concessions – especially in a situation where access to financing is difficult. Companies that hold concessions are ‘not clean companies’, [but] often businesses with close ties to political and military elite,” one environmental activist told us.
Without strict safeguards, critics argue, carbon trading could exacerbate existing inequalities instead of driving real emissions reductions. Ensuring fair benefit-sharing and preventing speculative trading will be crucial to maintaining the market’s integrity.
The road ahead
Indonesia’s carbon market is now a reality, but whether it delivers genuine climate benefits remains to be seen. The Prabowo administration’s push for international trading must be balanced with environmental and social safeguards. Will this be a true climate solution – or just another way for big players to profit?
As carbon trading takes off, all eyes will be on how the government enforces regulations, ensures transparency, and protects vulnerable communities.
For now, the rush is on – and the stakes are high.
Ridwan, Alam Surya Putra, and Margaretha Wahyuningsih also contributed to this study.
The post Will Indonesia’s new carbon market be a climate solution or a game for big players? appeared first on Climate Home News.
Will Indonesia’s new carbon market be a climate solution or a game for big players?
Climate Change
DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
Blazing heat hits Europe
FANNING THE FLAMES: Wildfires “fanned by a heatwave and strong winds” caused havoc across southern Europe, Reuters reported. It added: “Fire has affected nearly 440,000 hectares (1,700 square miles) in the eurozone so far in 2025, double the average for the same period of the year since 2006.” Extreme heat is “breaking temperature records across Europe”, the Guardian said, with several countries reporting readings of around 40C.
HUMAN TOLL: At least three people have died in the wildfires erupting across Spain, Turkey and Albania, France24 said, adding that the fires have “displaced thousands in Greece and Albania”. Le Monde reported that a child in Italy “died of heatstroke”, while thousands were evacuated from Spain and firefighters “battled three large wildfires” in Portugal.
UK WILDFIRE RISK: The UK saw temperatures as high as 33.4C this week as England “entered its fourth heatwave”, BBC News said. The high heat is causing “nationally significant” water shortfalls, it added, “hitting farms, damaging wildlife and increasing wildfires”. The Daily Mirror noted that these conditions “could last until mid-autumn”. Scientists warn the UK faces possible “firewaves” due to climate change, BBC News also reported.
Around the world
- GRID PRESSURES: Iraq suffered a “near nationwide blackout” as elevated power demand – due to extreme temperatures of around 50C – triggered a transmission line failure, Bloomberg reported.
- ‘DIRE’ DOWN UNDER: The Australian government is keeping a climate risk assessment that contains “dire” implications for the continent “under wraps”, the Australian Financial Review said.
- EXTREME RAINFALL: Mexico City is “seeing one of its heaviest rainy seasons in years”, the Washington Post said. Downpours in the Japanese island of Kyushu “caused flooding and mudslides”, according to Politico. In Kashmir, flash floods killed 56 and left “scores missing”, the Associated Press said.
- SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION: China and Brazil agreed to “ensure the success” of COP30 in a recent phone call, Chinese state news agency Xinhua reported.
- PLASTIC ‘DEADLOCK’: Talks on a plastic pollution treaty have failed again at a summit in Geneva, according to the Guardian, with countries “deadlocked” on whether it should include “curbs on production and toxic chemicals”.
15
The number of times by which the most ethnically-diverse areas in England are more likely to experience extreme heat than its “least diverse” areas, according to new analysis by Carbon Brief.
Latest climate research
- As many as 13 minerals critical for low-carbon energy may face shortages under 2C pathways | Nature Climate Change
- A “scoping review” examined the impact of climate change on poor sexual and reproductive health and rights in sub-Saharan Africa | PLOS One
- A UK university cut the carbon footprint of its weekly canteen menu by 31% “without students noticing” | Nature Food
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
Factchecking Trump’s climate report
A report commissioned by the US government to justify rolling back climate regulations contains “at least 100 false or misleading statements”, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists. The report, compiled in two months by five hand-picked researchers, inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed” and misleadingly states that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”80
Spotlight
Does Xi Jinping care about climate change?
This week, Carbon Brief unpacks new research on Chinese president Xi Jinping’s policy priorities.
On this day in 2005, Xi Jinping, a local official in eastern China, made an unplanned speech when touring a small village – a rare occurrence in China’s highly-choreographed political culture.
In it, he observed that “lucid waters and lush mountains are mountains of silver and gold” – that is, the environment cannot be sacrificed for the sake of growth.
(The full text of the speech is not available, although Xi discussed the concept in a brief newspaper column – see below – a few days later.)
In a time where most government officials were laser-focused on delivering economic growth, this message was highly unusual.
Forward-thinking on environment
As a local official in the early 2000s, Xi endorsed the concept of “green GDP”, which integrates the value of natural resources and the environment into GDP calculations.
He also penned a regular newspaper column, 22 of which discussed environmental protection – although “climate change” was never mentioned.
This focus carried over to China’s national agenda when Xi became president.
New research from the Asia Society Policy Institute tracked policies in which Xi is reported by state media to have “personally” taken action.
It found that environmental protection is one of six topics in which he is often said to have directly steered policymaking.
Such policies include guidelines to build a “Beautiful China”, the creation of an environmental protection inspection team and the “three-north shelterbelt” afforestation programme.
“It’s important to know what Xi’s priorities are because the top leader wields outsized influence in the Chinese political system,” Neil Thomas, Asia Society Policy Institute fellow and report co-author, told Carbon Brief.
Local policymakers are “more likely” to invest resources in addressing policies they know have Xi’s attention, to increase their chances for promotion, he added.
What about climate and energy?
However, the research noted, climate and energy policies have not been publicised as bearing Xi’s personal touch.
“I think Xi prioritises environmental protection more than climate change because reducing pollution is an issue of social stability,” Thomas said, noting that “smoggy skies and polluted rivers” were more visible and more likely to trigger civil society pushback than gradual temperature increases.
The paper also said topics might not be linked to Xi personally when they are “too technical” or “politically sensitive”.
For example, Xi’s landmark decision for China to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 is widely reported as having only been made after climate modelling – facilitated by former climate envoy Xie Zhenhua – showed that this goal was achievable.
Prior to this, Xi had never spoken publicly about carbon neutrality.
Prof Alex Wang, a University of California, Los Angeles professor of law not involved in the research, noted that emphasising Xi’s personal attention may signal “top” political priorities, but not necessarily Xi’s “personal interests”.
By not emphasising climate, he said, Xi may be trying to avoid “pushing the system to overprioritise climate to the exclusion of the other priorities”.
There are other ways to know where climate ranks on the policy agenda, Thomas noted:
“Climate watchers should look at what Xi says, what Xi does and what policies Xi authorises in the name of the ‘central committee’. Is Xi talking more about climate? Is Xi establishing institutions and convening meetings that focus on climate? Is climate becoming a more prominent theme in top-level documents?”
Watch, read, listen
TRUMP EFFECT: The Columbia Energy Exchange podcast examined how pressure from US tariffs could affect India’s clean energy transition.
NAMIBIAN ‘DESTRUCTION’: The National Observer investigated the failure to address “human rights abuses and environmental destruction” claims against a Canadian oil company in Namibia.
‘RED AI’: The Network for the Digital Economy and the Environment studied the state of current research on “Red AI”, or the “negative environmental implications of AI”.
Coming up
- 17 August: Bolivian general elections
- 18-29 August: Preparatory talks on the entry into force of the “High Seas Treaty”, New York
- 18-22 August: Y20 Summit, Johannesburg
- 21 August: Advancing the “Africa clean air programme” through Africa-Asia collaboration, Yokohama
Pick of the jobs
- Lancaster Environment Centre, senior research associate: JUST Centre | Salary: £39,355-£45,413. Location: Lancaster, UK
- Environmental Justice Foundation, communications and media officer, Francophone Africa | Salary: XOF600,000-XOF800,000. Location: Dakar, Senegal
- Politico, energy & climate editor | Salary: Unknown. Location: Brussels, Belgium
- EnviroCatalysts, meteorologist | Salary: Unknown. Location: New Delhi, India
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
The post DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report appeared first on Carbon Brief.
DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report
Climate Change
New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit
The specter of a “gas-for-wind” compromise between the governor and the White House is drawing the ire of residents as a deadline looms.
Hundreds of New Yorkers rallied against new natural gas pipelines in their state as a deadline loomed for the public to comment on a revived proposal to expand the gas pipeline that supplies downstate New York.
New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit
A “critical assessment” report commissioned by the Trump administration to justify a rollback of US climate regulations contains at least 100 false or misleading statements, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists.
The report – “A critical review of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the US climate” – was published by the US Department of Energy (DoE) on 23 July, just days before the government laid out plans to revoke a scientific finding used as the legal basis for emissions regulation.
The executive summary of the controversial report inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed”.
It also states misleadingly that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”.
Compiled in just two months by five “independent” researchers hand-selected by the climate-sceptic US secretary of energy Chris Wright, the document has sparked fierce criticism from climate scientists, who have pointed to factual errors, misrepresentation of research, messy citations and the cherry-picking of data.
Experts have also noted the authors’ track record of promoting views at odds with the mainstream understanding of climate science.
Wright’s department claims the report – which is currently open to public comment as part of a 30-day review – underwent an “internal peer-review period amongst [the] DoE’s scientific research community”.
The report is designed to provide a scientific underpinning to one flank of the Trump administration’s plans to rescind a finding that serves as the legal prerequisite for federal emissions regulation. (The second flank is about legal authority to regulate emissions.)
The “endangerment finding” – enacted by the Obama administration in 2009 – states that six greenhouse gases are contributing to the net-negative impacts of climate change and, thus, put the public in danger.
In a press release on 29 July, the US Environmental Protection Agency said “updated studies and information” set out in the new report would “challenge the assumptions” of the 2009 finding.
Carbon Brief asked a wide range of climate scientists, including those cited in the “critical review” itself, to factcheck the report’s various claims and statements.
The post Factcheck: Trump’s climate report includes more than 100 false or misleading claims appeared first on Carbon Brief.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-trumps-climate-report-includes-more-than-100-false-or-misleading-claims/
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year 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 Change1 year 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”
-
Carbon Footprint1 year agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Why airlines are perfect targets for anti-greenwashing legal action
-
Renewable Energy2 months ago
US Grid Strain, Possible Allete Sale
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Some firms unaware of England’s new single-use plastic ban