Search Climate Insights Directory

The Agri-Food DCF Sourcing Criteria establish a framework for certifying agri-food entities that source commodities from land not subject to deforestation or natural ecosystem conversion after December 31, 2020. The criteria apply to supply chain actors—such as traders, processors, and retailers—generating at least 50% of their revenue from agri-food supply chains. Compliance requires that 90% of an entity's net procurement spend be compliant, with individual commodities accounting for 1% or more of spend included in the scope. Traceability requirements vary by risk: high-risk countries and specific commodities (cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, pulp and paper, and soy) require geolocation to the original production land plot, while low-risk origins may only require country-of-origin tracing until January 1, 2030. Mass-balance chains of custody are prohibited. Certification is valid for five years, subject to annual verifications by approved verifiers who sample at least 10% of procured volume and suppliers.

The Electrical Utilities Criteria establish requirements for the certification of electrical utilities and their debt instruments, focusing on a transition to net-zero emissions by 2050. The framework employs an entity-level approach to assess the decarbonisation of the entire electricity value chain, including generation, transmission, and distribution. Certification requires entities to meet a global emission intensity pathway and adhere to specific fossil fuel phase-out benchmarks, which vary between advanced and emerging economies. The criteria prohibit new investments in fossil fuel power generation and mandate a total phase-out of fossil fuel generation by 2040 at the latest. To support grid security, the criteria allow the replacement of coal with fossil gas under strict conditions, provided the entity maintains its emission intensity pathway and has a phase-out plan. Eligible mitigation measures for Use-of-Proceeds (UoP) bonds include retrofitting plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS), carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS), or cofiring with low-carbon synthetic fuels and biomass. Certification is available in two tiers: 'align' for those meeting the pathway at the time of certification, and 'transition' for those meeting it by the end of 2030.

The document argues that most utilities are failing to fully account for the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in their integrated resource plans (IRPs), which leads to inaccurate planning and missed financial opportunities. It provides a four-part toolkit for regulators, including benchmarks for utilities, specific regulatory actions, a set of evaluative questions for IRP reviews, and an explanation of key IRA provisions.

The fact sheet defines nature-based adaptation solutions (SafN) as actions to protect and manage ecosystems to improve community and nature resilience. It argues that for these solutions to be effective, they must be inclusive, accounting for how culture, customs, and social roles influence a person's ability to participate and benefit. The document provides a set of practical recommendations for inclusive planning, such as consulting high-risk groups, ensuring accessible meeting times and locations, and collaborating with local specialists to remove barriers to equitable benefit distribution. It highlights how climate impacts vary by identity, noting that women fishers, small-scale farmers, people with disabilities, and men in storm response face distinct risks based on their societal roles and resource access.

The document explains the eligibility and certification process for Low Carbon Buildings Bonds, detailing the pathways to achieve net-zero by 2050 and the specific requirements for new and existing buildings. It outlines the use of trajectories and proxies to measure emissions intensity and highlights new 2023 requirements for new buildings, including the prohibition of fossil fuels and mandatory Whole Life Carbon Assessments.

The document outlines guidance for communicating the relationship between care and climate crises, proposing four specific framing examples: care for nature, care for humans, climate justice, and the role of care in improving the economy and society. It emphasizes the necessity of addressing systemic oppression, colonial legacies, and gender stereotypes to ensure that care-work is not romanticized or oversimplified while pursuing equitable low-carbon lifestyles.

The guidance introduces the 'Triple A' framework (Ambition, Action, and Accountability) and five specific 'Hallmarks' to evaluate corporate transition plans. It emphasizes that credible plans must feature science-based, time-bound targets covering all material GHG emissions (Scopes 1, 2, and 3), detailed financial plans, and strong board-level governance. The document warns against the over-reliance on carbon offsets and the use of national NDCs as a substitute for sectoral science-based pathways, while advocating for annual third-party verification to ensure transparency and accountability.

The document argues that reporting on extreme weather is incomplete without explaining the climate connection. It provides specific phrasing for journalists to describe how warming temperatures 'supercharge' weather patterns and offers examples of this application across various phenomena, including heatwaves, droughts, flooding, sea level rise, winter weather, hurricanes, and wildfires. It also recommends specific attribution tools like the Climate Shift Index and World Weather Attribution to provide scientific grounding for these claims.

The document outlines the role of Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs) within the Paris Agreement's Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF) and explains how countries can use outputs from their National Adaptation Plan (NAP) processes to fulfill reporting options on climate change impacts and adaptation efforts.

The document outlines the synergies between National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs), suggesting that NAPs provide critical data on national circumstances, risks, and adaptation strategies that can be cross-referenced or distilled into BTRs. It notes that even countries without a formally submitted NAP can use intermediate milestones, such as risk assessments or roadmaps, to fulfill BTR reporting requirements and avoid duplication of effort.

The document distinguishes between non-binding community benefits plans (CBPs) and legally binding community benefit agreements (CBAs), detailing how the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) integrates CBPs into funding and financing programs under the IIJA and IRA to drive equitable energy transitions.

The EU Regulation on Deforestation-Free Products (EUDR) mandates strict due diligence and geolocation traceability for specific commodities to ensure they are not linked to deforestation after December 31, 2020. While currently targeting operators and traders, the regulation may expand to financial institutions by mid-2025. The Climate Bonds Initiative is developing transition pathways and certification criteria to help agri-food companies move beyond legal compliance toward best practices in sustainability.

The document outlines the requirements and opportunities for Parties to the Paris Agreement to report on climate change impacts and adaptation through Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs). While the adaptation chapter (A-BTR) is generally optional, it is required if the BTR is submitted jointly with a National Communication (NC) or serves as an Adaptation Communication (AdCom). The briefing emphasizes that countries can reduce reporting burdens by cross-referencing existing documents, such as NAPs, and using the A-BTR to provide data for the Global Stocktake's assessment of the Global Goal on Adaptation.

The We Mean Business Coalition's 'Fossil to Clean' campaign provides a framework for phasing out fossil fuels by 2040. It outlines specific requirements for demand-side companies to end unabated fossil fuel use, for producers to cease new exploration and reach near-zero methane emissions by 2030, for financial institutions to halt new fossil fuel funding, and for governments to decarbonize power systems by 2035-2040.

The document debunks ten common climate change myths, asserting that over 99% of climate scientists agree human activity is overheating the planet. It argues that the current rate of carbon release is unprecedented in 66 million years and that while the climate has changed naturally before, the current rapid change is caused by burning fossil fuels. The guide highlights that the US is the largest cumulative emitter of greenhouse gases in history, followed by China. It further states that current global temperatures are approximately 1.2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels, which is already intensifying extreme weather. Finally, it emphasizes that humanity possesses the necessary tools and technologies to limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius and that a significant portion of the global population is concerned about climate change.

The document defines seafood jurisdictional initiatives (JIs) as place-based efforts that combine policy and market-based approaches to achieve holistic sustainability at ecological and political scales. It argues that while traditional certification, ratings, and improvement (CRI) efforts are valuable, they lack the scale to address systemic barriers like climate change, biodiversity loss, and labor rights. The guide outlines the roles of market partners in incentivizing governments through preferential sourcing and long-term contracts, and provides a step-by-step approach for prioritizing jurisdictions and determining investment. It emphasizes that JIs are complementary to CRI efforts and require long-term commitments—often 8 to 20 years—supported by robust monitoring, verification, and community-led governance.

The document outlines a framework for seafood jurisdictional initiatives (JIs) as a complement to traditional certification, ratings, and improvement (CRI) efforts. It defines JIs as place-based approaches that combine governance reform and market-based strategies to address systemic barriers—such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and labor rights—that individual farm or fishery certifications cannot solve alone. The guide details the necessary elements for success, including multistakeholder collaboration, robust monitoring and verification frameworks, and the importance of aligning geographic boundaries with decision-making authority.

The document outlines the concept of seafood Jurisdictional Initiatives (JIs) as place-based, multistakeholder efforts that combine policy reform and market-based incentives to address systemic sustainability challenges. It contrasts JIs with traditional certification, ratings, and improvement (CRI) projects, arguing that JIs are better suited for tackling cumulative impacts, climate resilience, and social equity across entire production geographies. The guide details a three-step implementation process—scoping, co-designing, and co-implementing—and emphasizes the critical roles of government leadership, private-sector engagement, and the inclusion of Indigenous peoples and local communities. It also provides guidance on establishing monitoring, reporting, and verification frameworks to ensure the credibility of sustainability claims.

The guidelines advocate for jurisdictional initiatives (JIs) as a complementary approach to traditional certification, ratings, and improvement (CRI) efforts. While CRI focuses on individual farms or fisheries, JIs operate at a broader scale to address systemic issues like climate resilience, biodiversity loss, and labor rights through policy reform and multistakeholder collaboration. The document outlines key enablers for success, including government leadership, long-term blended finance, and ecosystem-based management. It also provides frameworks for monitoring, reporting, and verifying claims, emphasizing that performance outcomes typically take eight to 20 years to materialize. Case studies, such as the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) for tuna and a shrimp aquaculture project in Indonesia, illustrate the application of these principles.

The document urges companies to incorporate nature into their climate plans by reducing the 35% of global emissions linked to forestry, farming, and land use, while investing in the protection and restoration of ecosystems. It advocates for the use of the 4 A's of Climate Leadership framework to set 1.5°C-aligned science-based targets, specifically calling for the elimination of deforestation from supply chains by 2025. The guide highlights a significant funding gap, noting that nature-based solutions receive only 3% of climate finance despite representing 30% of the climate solution, with $350 billion needed annually by 2030 to end nature loss.