Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (45) (remove)
Year of Publication
Document Type
- Peer-Reviewed Article (18)
- Working Paper (14)
- Report (11)
- Contribution to Periodical (2)
Division
As the climate crisis is accelerating and the pressure to act is steadily increasing, many companies are claiming themselves or their products carbon neutral. This is usually achieved by offsetting residual emissions with carbon certificates (carbon offsetting). However, recent revelations about the inadequate quality of carbon credits and legal uncertainties surrounding the use of such offset claims are increasingly raising doubts about this approach.
This Wuppertal Report examines how the EU can promote integrity in corporate climate action. Taking into account the new framework of the Paris Agreement, the paper outlines various options for how the EU could push for more integrity and effectively combat greenwashing through the targeted use of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.
In their recommendations, the authors advocate addressing the most serious consequences of ongoing offset practices through increased regulation of offset claims. If a ban on offset claims cannot be implemented, claims requirements and carbon offset regulations should be further specified, for example, by prohibiting any type of double counting of emissions reductions. In addition to tightening the rules for corporate offset claims within Europe, the EU could help partner countries make informed decisions when approving climate change mitigation measures and respective carbon credits. The report also emphasizes the EU's special role in international climate negotiations, where it should advocate for a strong legal framework for climate action under Article 6.
Die Analyse erläutert die Funktionsweise des globalen Kohlenstoffmarkts und wie dieser von Unternehmen zur CO2-Kompensation bei der Erfüllung ihrer freiwilligen Klimaschutzziele genutzt wird. Vor dem Hintergrund der veränderten Rahmenbedingungen des Übereinkommens von Paris stellen die Autoren dar, mit welchen Herausforderungen der Kohlenstoffmarkt konfrontiert ist und wie diese durch Nutzung einer Alternative zur CO2-Kompensation überwunden werden können.
Am frühen Sonntagmorgen des 20. November 2022 ging die 27. Konferenz der Vertragsparteien des Rahmenübereinkommens der Vereinten Nationen über Klimaänderungen (27th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), COP27) im ägyptischen Scharm El Sheikh zu Ende. Geplant war die Konferenz bis Freitag. Doch es gab viel zu diskutieren. Katastrophale Extremwetterereignisse wie die Überschwemmungen in Pakistan und historische Dürren in Europa unterstrichen auch dieses Jahr wieder die Bedeutung von ambitionierten klimapolitischen Entschlüssen. Auch der neueste Bericht des Weltklimarats (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) hatte erneut hervorgehoben, dass diese Ereignisse weiter eskalieren werden, je mehr die globale Erwärmung zunimmt.
The twenty-seventh Conference of the Parties (COP27) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Sharm el-Sheikh made history by for the first time ever discussing and ultimately even agreeing to establish a fund to address loss and damage caused by climate change. However, the conference did little to limit the occurrence of loss and damage in the first place by containing the extent of climate change. This article discusses the conference's outcomes in the areas of mitigation and adaptation, loss and damage, the Global Stocktake, cooperation under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, climate finance, and gender-responsiveness. While modest progress can be observed, it is too slow to actually achieve the objectives of the Paris Agreement. This pace is leading many, not least the most vulnerable countries, to search for parallel arenas of cooperation.
This report develops an evaluation framework that policymakers can use to identify whether offsets can add value and uphold environmental integrity of a compliance scheme. It uses a scoring framework on factors to: (1) identify which sectors have hard-to-abate emissions that can justify demanding offsets as cost-containment measures for ambitious climate policies; and (2) identify mitigation activities that are otherwise inaccessible, fosters sustainable development, and the extent to which it enables transformative sectoral action to be eligible to supply offsets. This evaluation framework identifies the optimal conditions that make factors successful in either having sectors demand offsets, or specific mitigation activities supply offsets. Sectoral emissions that are hard-to-abate are those that are technically unavoidable due to a lack and maturity of technologies, and therefore should be allowed to have cost-containment measures - such as offsets - to avoid adverse economic ramifications such as carbon leakage. Mitigation activities that can supply offsets are those that are currently inaccessible to local actor’s due to lack of access to technology, finance or capabilities. Allowing these mitigation activities to be eligible to supply offsets allows to pilot such activities and realize mitigation outcomes outside the original scope of the compliance scheme. This report has chosen selected sectors and mitigation activities to illustrate how this framework can be applied at the global level. It recognizes that country-specific factors can change the assessment of whether the offset approach will add value and uphold environmental integrity to proposed compliance schemes of a country. The report further proposes practical steps policymakers can do to undertake an evaluation at the national level.
Offsetting enables countries and companies to meet part of their climate change mitigation obligations by using mitigation outcomes generated elsewhere - in lieu of own emission reductions. This report explores the future role of offset approaches and how they could be successfully integrated into a post-2020 climate regime by focusing both the supply and demand side. For this purpose, the report develops a conceptual approach that derives a normative vision of what should be considered a successful offset use in a top-down manner to then link this vision to specific factors on the ground in sectors and jurisdictions where offsets will be generated and used. It explores how these factors influence the successful operationalisation of the offset approach and how they can inform its design. In addition, the report also explores six conceptual design aspects to providing recommendations on how to take these factors into account during the design of the offset approach. Based on these findings, the authors derive overarching policy recommendations on the integration of offsets into carbon pricing schemes.
The objective of this report is to use historical analysis to identify conditions that determine when offsets add value to compliance schemes while upholding environmental integrity. The indicators of success include: increased acceptance of introducing compliance schemes; raising ambition in subsequent compliance periods; the possibility to drive emission reductions outside the compliance sectors; promoting investments in sustainable development; and avoiding perverse incentives that undermine the stringency of the compliance scheme or compliance actors’ efforts in reducing their own emissions. Through undertaking in-depth case study analyzes on the effects of offsets in the European Union, Alberta, Australia, Colombia and Japan, the report identifies common conditions that explain why offsets were successful (or not) in achieving individual indicators. The report further identifies two common conditions that can help explain when offsets achieve all five indicators of success. The first is that policymakers need to be willing to design the compliance scheme to set and maintain a strong compliance price signal that justifies the need for incorporating cost containment measures, such as offsets, to avert negative political and economic ramifications. Relatedly, the second condition requires institutions, processes and infrastructure that govern both the compliance scheme and offsets to be well developed so that they can ensure offsets uphold the principles of environmental integrity, achieve sustainable development benefits, and act as a reliable cost containment measure to high compliance prices. The findings also highlight how difficult it is to achieve both conditions, as both domestic and international political economy factors determine whether policymakers and voters are willing to introduce and maintain compliance schemes that deliver effective action on climate.
The Glasgow climate conference marked a symbolic juncture, lying half-way between the adoption of the UNFCCC in 1992 and the year 2050 in which according to the IPCC special report on the 1.5°C limit net zero CO2 emissions need to be reached, globally, in order to maintain a good chance of achieving the 1.5°C limit. This article undertakes an assessment of what the UNFCCC and in particular the Paris Agreement and its implementation process have actually achieved so far up to and including the results of the Glasgow conference. The article discusses efforts at ambition raising both within and outside the formal diplomatic process, the finalization of the implementation rules of the Paris Agreement, as well as progress on gender responsiveness, climate finance, adaptation and loss and damage. In summary, the Paris Agreement and its implementation can be considered a success as it is having a discernible impact on the behavior of parties as well as on non-party actors. However, significant further efforts will be required to actually achieve the objectives of the Agreement.
More and more companies are announcing their intention to become climate-neutral and numerous companies already offer climate-neutral products or services: From climate-neutral parcel delivery to air travel. But what exactly do the companies' net-zero targets mean? Is the target set ambitious? And what role does offsetting play, i.e., purchasing carbon credits that are accounted against the company's own climate target? The approaches behind the proclaimed targets are often difficult to understand. Against this background, this Zukunftsimpuls provides ten recommendations for the definition and implementation of neutrality targets. Among other things, the authors advocate the use of a robust database as the basis for net-zero targets, emphasize the importance of transparent communication, and highlight the role that offsetting should play. Purchased carbon credits should make as limited a contribution as possible for meeting climate targets and should only be used to offset emissions that cannot be reduced or avoided. More generally, net-zero targets should not be made the sole criterion for ambitious climate strategies. Rather, they are a building block of a much more comprehensive strategy of corporate climate action.
Immer mehr Unternehmen verkünden, klimaneutral sein zu wollen und zahlreiche Firmen bieten bereits klimaneutrale Produkte oder Dienstleistungen an: Von der klimaneutralen Paketzustellung bis zur Flugreise. Doch was bedeuten die Neutralitätsziele der Unternehmen genau? Ist das gesetzte Ziel ambitioniert? Und welche Rolle spielt Offsetting, also der Ankauf von Klimaschutzzertifikaten und deren Anrechnung auf das eigene Klimaschutzziel? Die hinter den verkündeten Zielen stehenden Ansätze sind häufig nur schwer nachvollziehbar. Vor diesem Hintergrund gibt der vorliegende Zukunftsimpuls zehn Empfehlungen für die Festlegung und Umsetzung von Neutralitätszielen. Die Autorinnen und Autoren sprechen sich dabei unter anderem für die Nutzung einer robusten Datenbasis als Grundlage für Neutralitätsziele aus, betonen die Bedeutung einer transparenten Kommunikation und zeigen auf, welche Rolle Offsetting spielen sollte. So sollten angekaufte Klimaschutz-Zertifikate einen möglichst begrenzten Beitrag zur Zielerfüllung leisen und ausschließlich zum Ausgleich von Emissionen genutzt werden, die nicht reduziert oder vermieden werden können. Insgesamt sollten Neutralitätsziele nicht zum alleinigen Kriterium für ambitionierten Klimaschutz von Unternehmen gemacht werden, sie stellen vielmehr ein Baustein einer weitaus umfassenderen unternehmerischen Klimaschutzstrategie dar.
2020 was meant to be the year of climate ambition. Then the COVID-19 pandemic struck, the Glasgow conference was postponed to November 2021, and climate policy generally appeared to have been put on the backburner. But towards the end of the year prospects seemed to brighten with a series of zero-emission pledges and the election of Joe Biden as US President. This article analyses what the year of the pandemic achieved in terms of combating climate change. This article first summarizes the virtual events that were organised to substitute for the physical UNFCCC conferences and what progress was or was not made on the outstanding items of the "Paris rulebook", implementation of the Gender Action Plan, and other items. Subsequently, the article surveys the status of NDC updates and to what extent recovery programmes have been used to advance climate action. Finally, the article takes a closer look at the current dynamics among non-Party actors. In summary, while formal negotiations essentially stopped in the year of the pandemic, the conservation did not. However, implementation is still lagging far behind the ambitious targets that have been set. While implementation is mostly the domain of national policy, the international process has a number of options at its disposal to foster climate action.
On the one hand, a large number of companies have committed to achieve net zero emissions and many of them foresee to offset some remaining emissions with carbon credits, suggesting a surge of future demand. Yet, the supply side of the voluntary carbon market is struggling to align its business model with the new legal architecture of the Paris Agreement. This article juxtaposes these two perspectives. It provides an overview of the plans of 482 major companies with some form of neutrality/net zero pledge and traces the struggle on the supply side of the voluntary carbon market to come up with a viable business model that ensures environmental integrity and contributes to achieving the objectives of the Paris Agreement. Our analysis finds that if carbon credits are used to offset remaining emissions against neutrality objectives, these credits need to be accounted against the host countries' Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to ensure environmental integrity. Yet, operationalizing this approach is challenging and will require innovative solutions and political support.
Key policy insights:
There is a growing mismatch between the faith placed in carbon credits by private sector companies and the continued quest for a common position of the main suppliers of the voluntary carbon market.
The voluntary carbon market has not yet found a way to align itself with the new legal architecture of the Paris Agreement in a credible and legitimate way.
Public policy support at the national and international level will be needed to operationalize a robust approach for the market’s future activities.
The Paris Agreement combines collective goals with individual countries' contributions. This hybrid approach does not guarantee that the individual contributions add up to what is required to meet the collective goals. The Paris Agreement therefore established the Global Stocktake. Its task is to "assess collective progress" towards achieving the long-term goals of the agreement as of 2023 and every five years thereafter. Corresponding to this role, this report addresses three questions: What should an effective Global Stocktake look like? What information and data are needed? Is it possible to execute an effective Global Stocktake within the mandate of the Paris Agreement?
Design options for the new international market mechanism under article 6.4 of the Paris agreement
(2020)
In this project commissioned by the German Environment Agency, important aspects of the mechanism under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement were examined in more detail. This mechanism is to succeed the CDM under the Kyoto Protocol from 2021 onwards, but it will contain decisive improvements, especially with regard to a robust accounting of emission reductions and better integration into the national climate policy of the host country. The report is addressed to the international experts, in particular to the delegates to the climate conference and observers, and is therefore written in English. A German summary is included. The following topics are covered:
How does the mechanism achieve an overall reduction of global emissions?
Are there opportunities to use benchmarks to establish baselines?
Can contributions to increasing ambition be made by using Art. 6.4?
What contribution can the voluntary market make to increasing ambition in the future?
Introduction of incentives for the participation of private companies under Art. 6.4 of the PA.
The role of the Art. 6.4 mechanism on the way to a net zero emission world.
The project provides a contribution to the general discussion in the EU as well as to the Article 6 - Negotiations under the UNFCCC. It is a contribution that presents backgrounds and interrelationships for individual questions concerning the design of the new market mechanisms under Article 6 and can thus contribute to a more informed decision-making process.Since there are, however, several different ways of designing a mechanism that can avoid double counting and provide incentives for increasing ambition, this project is only one of several current contributions to the international discussion.
Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement explicitly acknowledges the need to incentivize and facilitate the participation of private entities in the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), private sector actors had already the opportunity to participate in a new and fast-growing market. However, they faced numerous challenging investment barriers. The study provides an overview on key factors and barriers determining private sector participation in Article 6 mechanisms. It distinguishes between the three topics demand side factors, rules and standards for market mechanisms, and supply side factors and provides for each of them options to mitigate or overcome barriers.
In a short analysis, it further explores three of the identified options:
- Improving the design and support of national systems and capacities is an important pre-requisite for the private sector to be able to generate and sell ITMOs
- The up-scaling of mitigation activities e. g. through (sub-) sector level crediting, and policy crediting helps private sector actors to benefit from economies of scale
- Exploring the potential of digitization of measuring, reporting and verification (MRV), e. g. the use of sensors, internet of things, artificial intelligence and blockchain to make the project cycle more efficient and reduce transaction costs.
Overall, the report stresses the importance of host country readiness to provide the private sector with a robust and trusted environment that allows for the adoption of Article 6 mechanisms.
Last year's conference of the global climate change regime took place from 2 until 15 December 2019 in Madrid, Spain. Despite marking a new record for overtime in the history of the UNFCCC, the conference did not only fail to meet the increasing public demand for swift and strong climate action, it also failed on its formal mandate to finalise the Paris rulebook. A record number of issues were left unresolved and shelved for the next session. COP25 thereby highlighted how much work still lies ahead both domestically and internationally if 2020 is to see a step-up in climate action that is consistent with the long-term goal of the Paris Agreement.
Global climate
(2020)
The annual Climate Change Conference took place on 2-15 December in Katowice, Poland. It included the twenty-fourth Conference of the Parties (COP-24) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the fourteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (MOP-14), the resumed first Meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (MOP-1), and their subsidiary bodies. The conference had two main objectives: operationalizing the Paris Agreement by adopting detailed rules for its implementation and starting the process of strengthening the parties' climate protection contributions.
This report explores the future role of the voluntary carbon market and its potential to contribute to raising the ambition of climate policy. For this purpose, desk research was complemented by interviews with voluntary carbon market representatives. The report finds that the current roles of the voluntary market are set to change fundamentally due to the Paris Agreement. For the future of the voluntary market as an investor, three roles were identified, each of which is associated with specific challenges: The market may maintain its current role of buyer of carbon neutrality credits, it may become a supporter of NDC implementation, or it may become a driver of ambition. With regard to the future role of private certification standards, the Paris Agreement may hold the possibility of using such standards in the context of compliance activities. Overall, the findings indicate that the voluntary market has some potential to contribute to ambition raising. Whether this potential will actually be unlocked depends on how the concept of ambition raising will be operationalized under the Paris Agreement and to what degree it can be integrated into the voluntary market's activities and business models.
Article 6 of the Paris Agreement establishes mechanisms for Parties to "pursue voluntary cooperation in the implementation of their nationally determined contributions to allow for higher ambition in their mitigation and adaptation actions [...]" (Article 6.1). I. e. the mechanisms are explicitly designed to foster higher ambition. However, without additional guidance and rules, the economic incentives of carbon markets may work against increasing host country ambition. For example, setting ambitious NDC targets may directly reduce the amount of mitigation outcomes that go beyond the NDC target and that a host country can transfer abroad. The report presents four options on how the risks can be ad-dressed and ambition can be increased: (1) Strengthening reporting, transparency and comparability; (2) Reconciling the design of the Article 6.4 mechanism with ambition raising of host countries; (3) Supporting the host country to raise ambition through the Article 6.4 mechanism; (4) Fostering the acquiring country to raise ambition through the Article 6.4 mechanism. These options are assessed and recommendations are provided on how they could be implemented.
Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement establishes a new mechanism for Parties to cooperate in achieving their nationally determined contributions (NDCs). One key innovation of the Article 6.4 mechanism is its objective to "deliver an overall mitigation in global emissions" (Art. 6.4(d)). This report develops recommendations on how to implement this objective. A key difficulty lies in the fact that even basics of how the mechanism is supposed to function have so far not been clarified by the Parties. The report therefore first sketches out what has so far been agreed and discussed on the mechanism’s activity cycle. Second, as the concept of overall mitigation has so far also not been clearly defined by Parties, the report derives a working definition from the language that was agreed in the Paris Agreement. In the next step, the report provides a survey of the options to achieve overall mitigation that have so far been discussed in the relevant literature and in the Article 6 negotiations. Many of these options were developed in the context of the Kyoto mechanisms. The report therefore discusses to what extent the options are also applicable under the Paris Agreement or whether adjustments need to be made. In the following, the options that are applicable under the Agreement are assessed on the basis of a number of criteria. The report concludes with a summary of the main findings and recommendations.