Connect with us

Published

on

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?  

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Maine Presses Pause on Large Data Centers. Will Other States Follow Its Lead?

Published

on

The moratorium is the first of its type to pass a legislative chamber, but about a dozen other states have pending proposals.

Maine is now the first state to pass a moratorium on the development of large data centers, and others may follow.

Maine Presses Pause on Large Data Centers. Will Other States Follow Its Lead?

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Climate Activists Stage Mock Funeral for Landmark Climate Rule

Published

on

The Trump EPA’s repeal of the 2009 endangerment finding revokes the agency’s authority to regulate climate pollution. Environmental activists are mourning the loss while vowing to resurrect it.

A procession of mourners representing sea level rise, melting permafrost, ecocide and other climate calamities grieved the demise of a groundbreaking climate rule outside the Environmental Protection Agency’s Region 9 headquarters in downtown San Francisco on Tuesday.

Climate Activists Stage Mock Funeral for Landmark Climate Rule

Continue Reading

Climate Change

IEA slashes pre-war oil demand forecast by nearly a million barrels per day

Published

on

Global oil demand is expected to be almost one million barrels per day less than was forecast before the Iran war, as shortages and soaring costs prompt drastic cutbacks by consumers and businesses, a report by the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Wednesday.

With the closure of the Strait of Hormuz choking off supplies and keeping prices high, less oil is being used to make products such as jet fuel, LPG cooking gas and petrochemicals, the Paris-based IEA said in its monthly oil report, forecasting the biggest quarterly demand drop since the COVID pandemic.

The Iran war “upends our global outlook”, the government-backed agency said, adding that it now expects oil demand to shrink by 80,000 barrels per day in 2026 from last year.

Before the conflict began, the IEA said in February it expected oil demand to rise by 850,000 barrels per day this year, meaning the difference between the pre-war and current estimates is 930,000 barrels a day, or 340 million barrels a year.

That could have a significant impact on the outlook for planet-heating carbon emissions this year.

At an intensity of 434 kg of carbon dioxide per barrel of oil – the estimate used by the US Environmental Protection Agency – the annual reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from oil for 2026, compared with the pre-war forecast, is similar to the amount emitted by the Philippines each year.

Harry Benham, senior advisor at Carbon Tracker, told Climate Home News that he expects at least half of the reduction in oil demand to be permanent because of efficiency gains, behavioural change and faster electrification.

The oil shock is leading to oil being replaced, especially in transport, with electricity and other fuels, just as past oil shocks drove lasting reductions in consumption, he said. “The shock doesn’t delay the transition – it reinforces it,” he added.

Demand takes a hit

While demand for oil has fallen significantly, supplies have fallen even further. Supply in March was 10 million barrels a day less than February, the IEA said, calling it the “largest disruption in history”.

This forecast relies on the assumption that regular deliveries of oil and gas from the Middle East will resume by the middle of the year, the IEA said, although the prospects for this “remain unclear at this stage”.

    Last month, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright told the CERAWeek oil industry conference that prices were not high enough to lead to permanent reductions in demand for oil, known as demand destruction.

    But the IEA said on Wednesday that “demand destruction will spread as scarcity and higher prices persist”.

    Industries contributing to weaker demand for oil include Asian petrochemical producers, who are cutting production as oil supplies dry up, the report said, while consumers are cutting back on liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), which is mainly used as a cooking gas in developing countries, the IEA said.

    Flight cancellations caused by the war have dampened demand for oil-based jet fuel, the IEA said. As well as cancellations caused by risk from the conflict itself, airports have warned that fuel shortages could lead to disruption.

    Across the world, governments, businesses and consumers have sought to reduce their oil use after the war. The government of Pakistan has cut the speed limit on its roads, so that people drive at a more fuel-efficient speed, and Laos has encouraged people to work from home to preserve scarce petrol and diesel.

    Nepal’s EV revolution pays off as oil crisis causes pain at the pumps

    Consumers in Bangladesh are seeking electric vehicles (EVs) to avoid fuel queues and, in Nigeria, more people are seeking to replace petrol and diesel generators with solar panels, Climate Home News has reported.

    In the longer term, the European Union is considering cutting taxes on electricity to help it replace fossil fuels and France is promoting EVs and heat pumps.

    IEA urged to help “future-proof” economies

    Meanwhile, the IEA came under fire last week from energy security experts, including former military chiefs, who signed an open letter in which they accused the agency of offering “only a temporary response to turbulent markets”, calling for stronger structural action “to future-proof our economies”.

    They said that besides releasing emergency oil stocks and offering advice on how to reduce oil demand in the short term, the IEA should show countries how to reduce their exposure to volatile oil and gas markets.

    The IEA has also been under pressure from the Trump administration to talk less about the transition away from fossil fuels.

    This article was amended on 15 April 2026 to correct the drop in 2026 forecast oil demand from “nearly a billion” to “nearly a million”

    The post IEA slashes pre-war oil demand forecast by nearly a million barrels per day appeared first on Climate Home News.

    IEA slashes pre-war oil demand forecast by nearly a million barrels per day

    Continue Reading

    Trending

    Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com