- Formal negotiations
- Finance
- Global review
- Global report
- Digital sequence information
- Harmful subsidies
- Marine biodiversity
- Planning, monitoring, reporting and review
- Article 8(j) implementation
- Biodiversity and climate change
- Links with other bodies
- Around the COP
- Armenian presidency
- Protests
- Lobbying and influence
- Carbon and biodiversity markets
Rachel Rose Jackson & Adrien Tofighi-Niaki of Corporate Accountability are lead researchers on a new report on the effectiveness of carbon offset reforms.
As we pen this, the world’s governments are gathered in Bonn, Germany, for a round of tense climate negotiations that must deliver fruitful progress if COP30 later this year in Belém has any chance of helping us avoid complete climate breakdown. Simultaneously, industry actors, policymakers and thousands of participants are coming together in London for more than 700 events meant to catalyse local to global climate collaboration.
We all know what is at stake should the world fail.
For decades, carbon offsets (or “pollution allowances” purchased by polluting actors and counted towards their emissions reductions) and the voluntary carbon market (VCM, which links up offsets into a globally tradable market) have been consistently promoted by world policymakers and the private sector as our key to addressing climate change.
Yet they have never, not once, correlated with a sustained decrease in global greenhouse gas emissions. Today, dozens upon dozens of independent studies and investigations repeatedly remind us of the fundamental failures of offsets and the VCM.
Pará’s Amazon forest carbon deal in doubt as prosecutors move to block it
Yet, the VCM is predicted to reach values of up to US$27 billion by 2035, signalling the clear intent to go “all in” on a scheme that has repeatedly proven its own failure. Meanwhile, leading scientists and the UN Secretary-General have warned against dubious offsets and put the VCM on notice, insisting the industry plug its holes or sink the ship.
VCM 2.0
In response to years of public exposure of its failures, the VCM industry is trying to defend its legitimacy through a coordinated reformation strategy – the “VCM 2.0.” New industry-led initiatives, methodologies, and standards have been launched to rescue the VCM – in a rush to assure investors that the Titanic’s holes are being plugged and that the iceberg is not fatal.
Going “all in” on offsets and the VCM means betting our futures, massive resources, and the ability of the planet to sustain human life on a mechanism that has failed to prove its competence for decades.
To understand how risky this bet is, we looked at “VCM 2.0” performance in 2024 to see if there are any signs that these reforms are spurring fundamental shifts, or whether carbon offsets are still beyond fixing.
Carbon credit auditors suspended for failures in sham rice-farming offsets
Widespread use of ‘problem’ offsets
What we found was concerning, but not surprising. Despite ongoing reforms, problematic offsets – with failings that mean they may not deliver the carbon savings they represent – remain the norm.
More than 47.7 million problematic offsets were “retired” (VCM lingo for purchased and counted towards emissions reductions) by 43 of the world’s largest projects in 2024, accounting for nearly a quarter of the entire VCM. None of these offsets can be counted on to deliver the promised emissions reductions, yet they are used by actors around the world, often in lieu of truly reducing emissions. In addition, we found that:
- Eighty percent of the offsets assessed were unlikely to deliver the promised emissions reductions.
- Nearly all (or 93%) of the projects retiring problematic credits are located in the Global Soth, countries that have historically contributed the least to climate change. This includes five projects in Brazil, host of the U.N climate talks later this year.
- The approval and promotion of problematic offsets spreads much further than one or two “bad apples.” Four registries and at least 17 verifiers were involved in approving these problematic offsets, signalling much broader responsibility for the failure of the VCM to deliver emissions cuts.
- Forestry and land use projects and renewable energy projects are among the most utilised problematic projects, though other sectors were also involved.
- All 37 projects we looked at in greater detail had a legitimate risk of having at least one fundamental failing that rendered the projects unlikely to deliver – totalling nearly 40 million credits. These projects either had a legitimate or high risk of non-additionality (23), non-permanence (14), leakage (17), or over-crediting (19).
Dangerous to ignore failings
This new research, which is just the tip of the iceberg, suggests that despite ongoing reforms, the VCM 2.0 continues to largely fail. Carbon offsets are hastening the likelihood of global climate action failure, not preventing it. Any advances through this reform appear to be limited in scope and potential, posing the question of why VCM supporters and investors continue to take on the liability in the face of proven (and repeated) failure.
Indigenous land disputes cloud Kenya’s carbon market ambitions
These findings, combined with the work of many other experts, necessitates clarity on who is responsible for the repeated failures of the ‘checks and balances’ of the VCM for the last decades. It’s time we reckon with what this research and the overwhelming evidence so clearly lays bare – that the VCM is still driving us head first toward the iceberg, and that offsets rip open rather than plug leaking holes, despite claims of reforms.
It is evident that 2024 repeated the failures of the past. We cannot entrust the VCM industry to captain the ship of climate action any longer. If we do, we know that humanity’s collision with the fatal iceberg is all but guaranteed.
*Neither Corporate Accountability nor the authors have any conflict to disclose. Corporate Accountability does not take any funding from corporations or governments. It is funded primarily by individuals and carefully vetted foundations.*
The post World’s largest carbon projects unlikely to deliver emissions cuts despite reforms appeared first on Climate Home News.
World’s largest carbon projects unlikely to deliver emissions cuts despite reforms
Continue Reading
Prepared by a coalition of nine Western Australian union, industry, conservation, and community organisations—including UnionsWA, the Conservation Council WA, and the Smart Energy Council—the WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan provides a practical roadmap to transform Western Australia into a clean energy powerhouse while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
Western Australia stands at a pivotal crossroads: lead the global clean energy economy or watch investment, future industries, and secure jobs go elsewhere. The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan outlines a transformative blueprint to harness the state’s world-class solar and wind resources. Discover how legislated renewable targets, green iron manufacturing, and a dedicated regional training strategy can generate tens of thousands of local jobs, lower household bills, and build a resilient, net-zero future for all Western Australians.
WA needs a clear and forward-thinking plan if it is going to become a competitive renewable energy powerhouse and maintain its economic strength through the energy transition.
“Western Australians know a faster renewable energy transition will lower their household expenses and prevent harmful climate pollution. But the community also needs clear direction to ensure this transition will create jobs, lower costs and not cause undue environmental harm.
“Here, sectors representing a broad range of interests have laid the groundwork for those outcomes, clearly outlining what is needed to create a future for WA that is good for the environment, for the climate, for workers and for the economy.
Summary
The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan sets out a strategic roadmap to position Western Australia as a global clean energy superpower while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
The report establishes three overarching goals:
- Creating local employment.
- Maintaining industrial competitiveness.
- Lowering household energy costs
To realize this vision, the framework details actionable measures to follow on from the recent WA Government announcement of a 75% Renewable Energy Target by 2031 for the South West Interconnected System. This includes developing a statewide Renewable Energy Target, coordinating statewide workforce and training pipelines, strategically planning regional infrastructure to safeguard high-value biodiversity and cultural heritage, and ensuring equitable benefit-sharing through household electrification incentives and First Nations equity partnerships. Ultimately, the plan highlights that establishing clear policy and regulatory certainty will unlock lower energy bills, boost power reliability, and secure the state’s global competitiveness in emerging green commodity export markets.
Key Findings
- Statewide Renewable Energy Target and Emissions Reduction Targets: The report calls for a statewide RET and 1.5°C aligned emission reduction targets to remove policy risk, lower capital costs, and attract clean energy investment.
- Transformative Job Creation: Accelerating the transition offers massive employment prospects, including up to 8,800 solar and battery jobs by 2050, as well as 24,000 ongoing and 11,000 construction jobs in a commercial green iron industry.
- Industrial Electrification & Competitiveness: Requiring large gas users to adopt binding electrification timetables and providing concessional financing will protect existing energy-intensive manufacturers from rising energy costs and impending domestic gas shortfalls.
- Green Commodity Export Leadership: Western Australia can build new export markets in green iron, green ammonia, and offshore oil/gas decommissioning by constructing shared common-user infrastructure and setting dedicated Green Commodity Export Targets.
- Coordinated Workforce & Training Pipeline: To address critical skill shortages the plan recommends establishing a WA Clean Energy Jobs Plan 2050, three regional training hubs, and dedicated pathways for female and under-represented apprentices.
- Environmental Safeguards & Community Benefits: Fast-tracked development must be paired with State Planning Policies that avoid high-biodiversity and cultural heritage lands, mandate new data centres to run on additional renewable power, and deliver household electrification rebates and First Nations equity partnerships.
What you can do
WA has an opportunity to lead on sustainable, clean energy and associated industries. You can help by:
- Sending an email to Environment Minister Murray Watt and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, calling on them to reject Browse.
- Sharing this story to help more Australians understand what’s at stake.
- Encouraging your friends and family to take action.
Countries have completed the first “global review” of their progress towards reversing nature loss by 2030 at the COP17 biodiversity talks in Yerevan, Armenia.
The review “notes with deep concern” that, unless action is “rapidly accelerated”, the goal to reverse nature loss and meet a set of 23 targets by 2030 “will not be achieved”.
It “urges” countries to accelerate action, including by “increased ambition in addressing the gaps”.
Much of the discussions in Yerevan focused on how to raise the necessary funds to help developing countries protect nature.
Some major economies pushed to expand the range of nations that are expected to provide finance, with countries agreeing at the end of the two weeks of talks that non-donors that want to contribute can “signal interest” before COP18.
This came after developed countries failed to meet a target to significantly ramp up nature finance over the last few years.
It also came as a landmark fund agreed at COP16 in Colombia to pay communities for the genetic resources derived from nature stands nearly empty two years on.
The Yerevan talks marked the halfway point of the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” (GBF), the “Paris Agreement for nature” first made in 2022 and due to be achieved by 2030.
During the nearly 12-hour-long final plenary, countries voted for Quito, Ecuador, to host the COP18 nature talks, which will be held in 2028.
Countries managed to sign off on all the major negotiation texts, marking a stark contrast to COP16, which ran so far over time that the Colombian presidency lost “quorum”, forcing talks to resume in Rome months later.
Below, Carbon Brief has detailed analysis of all of the key outcomes from COP17.
Formal negotiations
Finance
Finance, predictably, was at the heart of the discord and deadlock at the Yerevan talks.
At COP17, discussions on finance had to achieve several outcomes.
The first part – to take stock of biodiversity finance mobilised so far to meet the nature deal’s goals – fell under the global review.
As the global report noted, developed countries failed to meet their commitments to raise “at least $20bn a year by 2025” for nature. Delegates pointed to falling aid levels and a sharp 27% decline in environmental funding for the 2026-30 period.
The second part was to agree on how to mobilise resources for the next four years, to meet the GBF’s goals and targets.
Calls to “broaden the contributor base” of who pays to protect nature – and whether that should include emerging economies – became the most fraught element of the talks.
Eventually, countries agreed on what Switzerland described as a “super, mega-delicate” text. It hinged on major “political compromises”, with “no major winner or loser”, according to Kenya.
Per the decision, countries that want to be included on a list of developed country donors can “signal interest” through bilateral, confidential consultations before COP18 and every alternate COP after.
Finally, countries also agreed on criteria to shape and resource a new, permanent financial mechanism to protect nature after 2030.
However, this did not immediately take the form of a new fund under the COP that biodiverse countries have demanded since 2022, deferring the mechanism’s institutional structure to COP18.
Resource mobilisation discussions at the GBF’s halfway mark were supposed to agree on how to close the “biodiversity finance gap” and to “increase resources from all sources” to “at least” $200bn per year by 2030, as set out in target 19 of the GBF.
The talks were largely dominated by a push, led by the JUSCANZ bloc of developed countries, to “broaden the contributor base”. This could see emerging economies, such as Qatar, China, Saudi Arabia and India, being added to the list of countries that pay to protect nature.