Latest news with #CorporateAccountability
Forbes
3 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
Are Country-To-Country Deals The Future Of Climate Finance?
This aerial view shows a degraded area of the Amazon rainforest, near the Koatinemo indigenous land, ... More in Para state, Brazil, on June 12, 2025. (Photo by Carlos FABAL / AFP) (Photo by CARLOS FABAL/AFP via Getty Images) The path to COP30 in Brazil has begun with preparatory talks in Bonn, Germany, where climate finance remains the central issue. Negotiators are working to find financing mechanisms that will help developing nations adapt to climate change and transition to cleaner energy sources. To draw new monies, climate discussions must evolve—from offsetting emissions elsewhere to reducing carbon pollution at its source. The U.S.'s absence from these mid-year talks might hint at how tough the road ahead will be. At COP29 in Baku, wealthy nations pledged to provide vulnerable countries with $300 billion annually to help them recover from climate-related damage. But they haven't even met their $100 billion yearly goal at COP21. And the Trump Administration, which withdrew from the talks altogether, has already made it clear that it has no intention of honoring those commitments. In a conversation, Rachel Rose Jackson of Corporate Accountability didn't mince words: 'The Global North has absolutely no intention of delivering this debt. There is little evidence that carbon markets have led to proven and lasting emissions reductions. They are a dangerous distraction from real solutions. Corporations must be legally required to reduce emissions at source—they can't self-regulate their way to climate responsibility.' The need for money is staggering. The UNFCCC concludes that developing countries must raise $6 trillion by 2030 to fulfill their promises under the Paris Agreement. Yet many wealthy nations continue to lean on a patchwork of carbon markets—tools that allow them to finance rainforest preservation while continuing to emit greenhouse gases at home. Former U.S. climate envoy John Kerry put it bluntly: 138 countries, responsible for less than 1% of annual CO2 emissions, are at the mercy of just 20 nations that account for 80% of the total. The voluntary carbon market (VCM) has long been a go-to option for the developed world—a cheaper, politically safer path than direct contributions to emerging economies. While the industry is working hard to revamp its procedures, the model faces mounting scrutiny. A review by Corporate Accountability found that 39 of 50 VCM projects lacked environmental integrity; the remainder were problematic or unverifiable. In short, buying offsets is easier and cheaper than making emissions cuts. I've served as the Coalition for Rainforest Nations editor, concentrating on sovereign carbon credits issued by countries, not private interests. Erosion Of Faith TOPSHOT - An Indian man takes a shower as water leaks from a pipeline in New Delhi on June 6, 2017. ... More - Temperatures are hovering around 45 degrees Celsius (113 degrees Fahrenheit) in the Indian capital, with the cooler monsoon season still weeks away. (Photo by MONEY SHARMA / AFP) (Photo by MONEY SHARMA/AFP via Getty Images) As faith has eroded, so has value. Nature-based offset prices have plummeted from $10–15 per ton just a few years ago to $3–$6 in 2024–2025. Major buyers like Nestlé, Gucci, and Shell have exited the market, citing concerns over reputational risk and questionable methodologies. The Global South feels hopeless. Will these nations ever be compensated for protecting tropical forests that absorb carbon emissions— produced mainly by the Global North? Reform efforts are underway. The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market has introduced a two-phase vetting system focused on governance and scientific rigor. The goal is to rebuild trust and distinguish high-integrity credits that could attract renewed investment. 'No one can guarantee it will be perfect,' Nat Keohane, a senior adviser to the council, told me. 'But we can help the market and build confidence.' If successful, the council believes the VCM could scale to $20 billion–$50 billion annually by 2030; carbon credit prices could be $25 to $30 a ton. Used wisely, these funds could help preserve rainforests, support green transitions, and provide new revenue streams to developing nations committed to protecting carbon sinks. Carbon credits are not a silver bullet—but they can provide near-term capital as countries and companies decarbonize. Their role is inherently transitional, especially in hard-to-abate sectors like heavy industry or cloud computing. I reported on Microsoft, which holds a majority stake in OpenAI and relies on extensive server farms. To offset those emissions, it is investing in reforestation projects in Panama. However, this gaping void presents a new opportunity for both the developed and developing worlds to devise new techniques for attracting carbon finance. A more promising approach is for the wealthier nations to engage in bilateral pacts. These country-to-country deals are carried out under Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement. This provision allows nations to fund climate projects abroad and count the resulting emissions reductions toward their climate goals, provided that strict rules are followed to prevent double-counting of the same carbon credit. The Clock Is Ticking The Scarlet Macaw, Ara macao, is a large, colorful parrot found from Mexico to Brazil. This flock ... More was photographed in Costa Rica. (Photo by: Jon G. Fuller/VW Pics/Universal Images Group via Getty Images) Switzerland has signed carbon credit cooperation agreements with Ghana, Peru, Thailand, Morocco, and Vietnam. Sweden is working on the entire African continent through its Energy Agency and in partnership with the UN Development Program. Specifically, it is funding a $28.2 million initiative to help Kenya meet its climate goals. 'Kenya pursues progressive environmental policies and has set ambitious climate goals, but needs financial support to accelerate its climate transition,' says Sweden's Ambassador to Kenya, Caroline Vicini, in a release. Other countries are exploring alternative paths. Ecuador, Belize, and Gabon are restructuring national debt in exchange for conservation. Norway and Germany, meanwhile, are bypassing carbon markets altogether and making direct payments for forest protection. Norway alone has pledged $1 billion to Brazil's Amazon Fund and to Indonesia, with payments tied to verifiable emissions reductions. Still, the question remains: can these new financing mechanisms scale fast enough? For poorer nations, this is not a matter of convenience but survival. Carbon markets, bilateral agreements, and direct aid offer potential pathways; however, the urgency demands that they be ratcheted up now. Panama's Minister of the Environment, Juan Carlos Navarro, told me that climate change presents the ultimate accountability dilemma: it's everyone's responsibility, which means no one is truly accountable — not even the United States, the world's second-largest CO2 polluter. The stakes could not be higher. Climate change is already reshaping our world from supercharged hurricanes to sweeping wildfires and historic floods. For the poorest nations, climate finance is not a luxury—it is a lifeline. These countries did not create the crisis. But they are counting on the rest of us to help solve it, requiring innovative tools to lure carbon finance.
Scoop
5 days ago
- Business
- Scoop
New Analysis Reveals How Unsuccessful The 'VCM 2.0' Reform Is To-Date
Boston, Massachusetts, 24 June 2025 – Today new research released by Corporate Accountability provides a deep dive into the largest carbon offset projects in the voluntary carbon market (VCM) in 2024, and explores how successful the 'VCM 2.0' reform is to-date at improving the integrity of the voluntary carbon market, as well as whether it is any more likely to reduce global emissions. A carbon offset is an 'allowance' that governments, institutions, and corporations—from fossil fuel majors and airlines to fast-food and tech giants—purchase from environmental projects to supposedly count towards their respective greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Millions of these offset credits, which are linked up through a global carbon market called the VCM, are purchased by these actors annually and counted towards their emissions reductions, often in lieu of other emissions-reducing activities. Despite decades of failing to lead to global emissions reductions, the VCM remains one of the most widely supported forms of climate action, promoted by world governments, industry actors, corporations, and policymakers alike. The analysis underscores the inherently problematic nature of increasing corporate and governmental investment in a scheme that remains fundamentally flawed and which is likely to continue to fail to reduce carbon emissions, all while distracting from meaningful climate action and even likely causing harm. The researchers conducted analysis of data on AlliedOffsets database as well as from industry ratings agencies like BeZero, and revealed that many of the world's largest offset projects in 2024 are unlikely to deliver global emissions reductions. Key findings include: More than 47.7 million problematic offsets credits were retired through 43 of the world's largest offset projects in 2024, meaning they are not likely to lead to the promised emissions reductions. These 43 projects alone account for nearly one-quarter of the VCM. Eighty percent of the offsets assessed in this analysis were problematic. Nearly all (or 93%) of the projects retiring problematic credits are located in the Global South, countries that have historically contributed the least to climate change. This includes five projects that are in Brazil, the upcoming host of the U.N climate talks later this year. Verra hosts the largest number of problematic projects and retired 43.6 million problematic offsets through the assessed projects, suggesting that its updated methodologies and measures taken to assure investors may not rectify the flaws. Yet the approval and promotion of problematic offsets unlikely to lead to emissions reductions spreads much further than Verra. Three other registries were involved in retiring problematic offsets from these projects, and at least 17 verifiers were involved in approving these problematic offsets for VCM trading, to then be purchased by VCM buyers all around the world. Forestry and land use projects had the largest number of problematic projects (23), followed by renewable energy projects (15), household devise projects (4), and chemical processes/industrial manufacturing projects (1). All 37 projects assessed in greater detail had a legitimate risk of having at least one fundamental failing that rendered the projects unlikely to deliver—totaling nearly 40 million credits. These projects either had a legitimate or high risk of non-additionality (23), non-permanence (14), leakage (17), or over-credited (19). The research suggests that despite ongoing reforms, the VCM 2.0 continues to largely fail, enhancing the likelihood of global climate action failure. 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 of such great risk, and who is liable for these failures. 'This research serves as an eleventh-hour warning for supporters and investors of carbon offsets and the carbon market,' said Meena Raman, Head of Programs at Third World Network. 'The implications are clear—it's time to shift away from carbon markets, which have failed to deliver emissions reductions for decades, and reinvest into proven solutions that permanently reduce emissions at source and justly address the root causes of climate change. These problematic offsets have no role in the climate action plans of countries or corporations. These pollution allowances have commodified the climate crisis and erased real action. As a result of these sham approaches, millions of lives are now being traded so polluters can profit.' The voluntary carbon market (VCM) has come under increased scrutiny thanks to multiple investigations by experts around the world revealing how these carbon trading schemes appear to give corporations cover to continue polluting while not actually reducing emissions, and even likely spurring significant harm. In 2023, a joint Guardian and Corporate Accountability investigation poked significant holes in carbon trading schemes seen to give permission to countries and corporations to continue burning fossil fuels. According to Rachel Rose Jackson, Director of Climate Research & Policy at Corporate Accountability, 'The latest evidence calls on policymakers as well as investors and supporters of carbon offsets to reckon with why such liability is being taken to continue to worship the voluntary carbon market, and for what real purpose—if it is not likely to lead to emissions reductions? Who is responsible for the repeated failures of the 'checks and balances' that are supposedly plugging the holes of this sinking ship? And why are we trying to solve a global crisis with a scheme that is yet again condemning the planet, not catalyzing the meaningful action urgently needed?' The failures of the VCM are likely much more vast than this research reveals, given that this research only provides one snapshot of problematic projects and fundamental failures that are likely to be more prevalent across the VCM as a whole. This suggests that critical reflections need to happen on the legitimacy of the VCM more broadly. 'The problem isn't just one bad actor; it's baked into the system even among those considered most reputable. And it is not limited to merely one actor or verifier in the carbon market ecosystem,' said Erika Lennon, Senior Attorney, Climate and Energy Program at Center for International Environmental Law. 'With mounting evidence, it's past time for major emitters to stop outsourcing their responsibility to the Global South and commit to a full fossil fuel phaseout – full stop, no loopholes. Clinging to carbon markets not only delays climate progress but also increases legal risks for companies betting on the credibility of these schemes instead of reducing their own emissions. Relying on and promoting offsets to address the climate crisis puts the planet's and all its inhabitants' future at risk and is as smart as relying on the arsonist to fight the fire.'
Scoop
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Corporate Accountability And Global Climate Justice Groups Issue Statement On Breakdown Of UN Climate Talks In Bonn
The following statement was delivered today by Rachel Rose Jackson, Corporate Accountability's Director of Climate Research and Policy, on June 19th, 2025 in Bonn, Germany at a UNFCCC press conference. For the full press conference alongside partners, see webcast here: As the saying goes, 'It takes two to tango,' and this is certainly true when it comes to international collaboration, whether on climate action or anything else. But let's be absolutely clear. The United States has always been a very dreadful dance partner. From day one. Nothing has changed in this regard here at Bonn,, apart from their physical absence from the dance floor, which sends a very clear message to the world that, truly, the United States cares for no one and nothing but itself. Now, at least the only thing that's different, is that it's clear for all the world to see what those of us who have spent many years in these halls have always witnessed—that the US never was and never has been serious about international collaboration of any kind. That the US throws its neocolonial and capitalist weight around to bully, block, and stall progress on any issue that would require it to act meaningfully. And that the US never has and never will care about saving lives, protecting the planet, or avoiding an entire societal collapse that it has played a direct hand in orchestrating for decades, if not centuries. But, at the same time, if you're not going to bother to show up to the dance floor to tango, then simply put, maybe don't bother to show up on the dance floor at all. Yet, rather than than simply abandoning their dance partners,, they have turned off the lights, broken the music player, put oil across the floor, tied everybody's shoe laces together and smashed the windows on the way out of the disco — all to ensure that with or without them here, the dance cannot proceed, and this process is rigged to fail. The US is acting in a way that is way more than bad faith. This is backhanded. It's manipulative. It's reckless. And it's also senseless and illogical, because the US. cannot seem to understand that an inadequate global response to climate change will not only condemn millions around the world to death and destruction, it will also condemn millions of its own. Especially those people of color, Indigenous communities, and low-income workers and communities. A dance that could have led to beautiful climate action decades ago has now become, to put it very simply, a dance of death. Because, the US doesn't care, and neither does the European Union or the Umbrella Group of countries, or the supposed Environmental integrity Group. The Global North has always been partnering with the United States in the toxic tango of poisoning international collaboration. Here in Bonn, we see only moves that will bring us closer to societal collapse and planetary destruction. And in the agenda fight over the opening days, the EU and others not only refused to come to the dance floor, they refused even to discuss the dance song or the choreography when all the Global South wanted to do and all they were asking for was the chance to discuss - * discuss *, not even deliver - meaningful climate finance and the climate debt owed to the Global South. The Global North has absolutely no intention of delivering this debt. They have already orchestrated their get out of jail free cards. Here, they will not even allow the pretense of a discussion about finance, and at COP last year in Bakù, they helped ram through the rules on carbon markets that provide the key to their great escape and their final destructive dance. Here and at home, they are also embedding these carbon markets into their pretend NDCs, to be seen to be taking action without really doing anything to do so. We are told time and time again that there is no money, that carbon markets are the only way for Global South communities and countries to receive any support to address climate change. All of this while they spend billions and trillions on military support to Israel, on their industrial military complexes, and now threatening the same in relation to the very disastrous developments unraveling in Iran. These countries have all the money in the world. They have amassed infinite wealth off the backs of frontline and Global South communities who they are now indebted to. Carbon markets are their way to shift all responsibility for the climate crisis to the very same communities that are already shouldering the greatest impacts, and to ensure that these Global North countries and Big Polluters can continue to pollute with impunity. But carbon markets don't work. Though they have been existing in some form for as long as the UNFCCC has, they have never, not once, correlated with a global decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. They harm communities, they destroy ecosystems, and they allow the fossil fuel industry, Big Ag, and other polluters to continue to pollute unchecked. They have been shown, time and time again, not to work, and are proven to fail. And they are not climate finance or climate action. So in the Global North's deceptive dance of climate breakdown, the moves we are seeing on the dance floor here in Bonnare the finale. And we must be attuned to their deadly agenda, and we must resist. We must call them out and we must hold them accountable. Not only to paying their long overdue climate debt. But to finally doing their fair share of climate action. The truth is it doesn't only 'take two to tango' when it comes to addressing the climate crisis. It actually takes everyone, together in this moment, on the dance floor dancing to the same music to have a dance of climate action. Without this,it is to become a dance of climate death and destruction..' Quotes from other members of Demand Climate Justice (DCJ): Meena Raman, Third World Network: '… For many of us who come to these UN processes, we really always feel whether the UN will live up to its multilateral agreements. So what we see here is that we as the peoples of the world, and particularly from the Global South, we have to hold governments to account, particularly in the Global North. Now the United States is not in this process, and perhaps to some extent that seems to be a good thing in the sense that the halls here are a little bit more less [sic] toxic. However, the Global North, those who remain here, continue to do and take the positions that the United States had been taking. So what you see here happening now is actually akin to a dance where you have only if you're doing the tango, you do need… two sides to tango. But what you see happening here is that the other side doesn't want to tango. It does not even want to have a discussion. So you can't have a dance like this… you need to tango together …so this is really about the multilateral regime and how we as peoples of the world have to hold governments to account and say honor, respect international law, respect human rights, respect what you have agreed to. And so this is what is really so important in terms of the overall… …all parties are responsible. We hold our developing country governments to account. But like I said, you need two to tango, and so we have to get on and not rely on and wreck the multilateral system through unilateral measures, whether they are trade, whether they are economic, whether they are by bombs and whether they are by total impunity destroying the very fragile international regime.' Pang Delgra, Asian People's Movement on Debt and Debt Development: 'You know as a young person from the Global South I am consistently baffled by the hypocrisy that we see in adaptation talks here at the UNFCCC. Despite ostensibly keeping adaptation in the agenda with five different negotiation streams, there has been no real progress in unlocking adaptation action on the ground, and this has been the case for years. The Adaptation Fund in its 16 year history has only received a meager $1 Trillion in support, while the adaptation finance needs of the Global South continue to balloon every year as we come closer and closer to hard adaptation limits. And need I remind everybody in the room that the consequences of this clear inaction are very clear and devastating. In my country, the Philippines, the lack of support for adaptation has led to loss and damages with 20 plus typhoons annually, leaving many of us homeless, bankrupt and unable to rebuild our lives. All over the Global South, agriculture is collapsing under the weight of climate extremes, threatening food sovereignty and pushing entire communities to hunger and displacement. Women around the world who are first to bear the brunt of the climate crisis are left to carry this burden on their own with little to no support even from their own governments. And the future that we're handing down to the future generations is marked with irreversible loss of homes, livelihoods and lands. And the heart of the issue here, as Meena has already said, is, you know, justice and reparations. This is why developed countries don't want to talk. They don't want to go to the table. And they will continue to stall these adaptation negotiations because they still refuse until now to recognise their role, the historical and continuing responsibility in causing the climate catastrophe and the resulting disproportionate vulnerability of the Global South that's being caused by their actions. We're locked into maladaptive pathways making basically adaptation action on the ground impossible because we have no finance…without urgent public grants based on adaptation finance…we are being condemned to permanent harm and we are not just being denied support, we are being sacrificed here. This is not a technical issue. This is not just all blah blah blah in those rooms. This is a political choice, as Meena said, a deliberate act of abandonment by the EU, the EIG, the umbrella group and their invisible allies in the U.S. We need adaptation justice now, and they don't want to give that to us. But we need it not just to adapt to our new catastrophic realities in the Global South but to ensure that we actually survive through this. And this is an issue that the Global South will continue to bring to the table and we as DCJ will continue to bring it to these rooms.'
Free Malaysia Today
02-06-2025
- Business
- Free Malaysia Today
US judge cancels planned Boeing trial over 737 crashes
Boeing will contribute US$444.5 million to support crash victims and invest US$455 million to improve compliance, safety, and quality programmes. (EPA Images pic) NEW YORK : A US federal judge on Monday cancelled the planned trial of US aviation giant Boeing over crashes of its 737 MAX aircraft that left nearly 350 people dead. The trial had been scheduled to begin June 23, but the justice department and Boeing reached a preliminary agreement last month to settle the long-running criminal probe into the accidents. US District judge Reed O'Connor granted the request of both parties to vacate the trial date and cancelled the criminal trial which had been scheduled to be held in Fort Worth, Texas. But the judge still must give his final approval to the settlement and he could reschedule a trial if he fails to give the deal his green light. Under the agreement, which has drawn condemnation from some families of crash victims, Boeing will pay US$1.1 billion and the justice department will dismiss a criminal charge over the company's conduct in the certification of the MAX. The agreement resolves the case without requiring Boeing to plead guilty to fraud in the certification of the MAX, which was involved in two crashes in 2018 and 2019 that claimed 346 lives – a Lion Air plane and an Ethiopian Airlines aircraft. The justice department described it as 'a fair and just resolution that serves the public interest.' 'The agreement guarantees further accountability and substantial benefits from Boeing immediately, while avoiding the uncertainty and litigation risk presented by proceeding to trial,' it said. Family members of some MAX victims slammed the proposed settlement, however, as a giveaway to Boeing. 'This kind of non-prosecution deal is unprecedented and obviously wrong for the deadliest corporate crime in US history,' Paul Cassell, an attorney representing relatives of victims, said when the settlement was announced. The justice department cited other family members who expressed a desire for closure, quoting one who said 'the grief resurfaces every time this case is discussed in court or other forums.' The preliminary agreement was the latest development in a marathon case that came in the wake of crashes that tarnished Boeing's reputation and contributed to leadership shakeups at the aviation giant. The case dates to a January 2021 justice department agreement with Boeing that settled charges that the company knowingly defrauded the federal aviation administration during the MAX certification. The 2021 accord included a three-year probation period. But in May 2024, the justice department determined that Boeing had violated the 2021 accord following a number of subsequent safety lapses. Boeing agreed in July 2024 to plead guilty to 'conspiracy to defraud the United States.' But in December, Judge O'Connor rejected a settlement codifying the guilty plea, setting the stage for the incoming Trump administration to decide the next steps. The deal announced in May requires Boeing to pay a fine of US$487.2 million with credit for a US$243 million penalty the company paid previously under the January 2021 agreement. Boeing will contribute US$444.5 million to a fund to benefit crash victims and lay out US$455 million to strengthen its compliance, safety and quality programmes.
The Independent
23-05-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Justice Department reaches deal to allow Boeing to avoid prosecution over 737 Max crashes
The Justice Department has reached a deal with Boeing that will allow the airplane giant to avoid criminal prosecution for allegedly misleading U.S. regulators about the 737 Max jetliner before two of the planes crashed and killed 346 people, according to court papers filed Friday. Under the 'agreement in principle" that still needs to be finalized, Boeing would pay and invest more than $1.1 billion, including an additional $445 million for the crash victims' families, the Justice Department said. In return, the department would dismiss the fraud charge in the criminal case against the aircraft manufacturer. 'Ultimately, in applying the facts, the law, and Department policy, we are confident that this resolution is the most just outcome with practical benefits," a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement. "Nothing will diminish the victims' losses, but this resolution holds Boeing financially accountable, provides finality and compensation for the families and makes an impact for the safety of future air travelers.' Many relatives of the passengers who died in the crashes, which took place off the coast of Indonesia and in Ethiopia less than five months apart in 2018 and 2019, have spent years pushing for a public trial, the prosecution of former company officials, and more severe financial punishment for Boeing. 'Although the DOJ proposed a fine and financial restitution to the victims' families, the families that I represent contend that it is more important for Boeing to be held accountable to the flying public,' Paul Cassell, an attorney for many of the families in the long-running case, said in a statement earlier this week. Boeing was accused of misleading the Federal Aviation Administration about aspects of the Max before the agency certified the plane for flight. Boeing did not tell airlines and pilots about a new software system, called MCAS, that could turn the plane's nose down without input from pilots if a sensor detected that the plane might go into an aerodynamic stall. The Max planes crashed after a faulty reading from the sensor pushed the nose down and pilots were unable to regain control. After the second crash, Max jets were grounded worldwide until the company redesigned MCAS to make it less powerful and to use signals from two sensors, not just one. Boeing avoided prosecution in 2021 by reaching a $2.5 billion settlement with the Justice Department that included a previous $243.6 million fine. A year ago, prosecutors said Boeing violated the terms of the 2021 agreement by failing to make promised changes to detect and prevent violations of federal anti-fraud laws. Boeing agreed last July to plead guilty to the felony fraud charge instead of enduring a potentially lengthy public trial. But in December, U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor in Fort Worth rejected the plea deal. The judge said the diversity, inclusion and equity, or DEI, policies in the government and at Boeing could result in race being a factor in picking a monitor to oversee Boeing's compliance with the agreement.
