Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that reporting on extreme weather without mentioning climate change is incomplete and potentially inaccurate. It provides specific phrasing and examples for connecting various weather phenomena—such as heatwaves, droughts, floods, and hurricanes—to global warming, while highlighting the role of attribution science in quantifying these links. It also recommends tools like the Climate Central 'Climate Change Index' and World Weather Attribution for real-time data.

The guidance outlines a model for achieving climate-neutral cities by 2030 through 'climate city contracts' that align municipalities, businesses, academia, and civil society. It emphasizes that achieving climate neutrality requires substantial funding for replacing or upgrading assets, which can be managed through iterative climate action and investment plans that pool resources and redirect public and civic capital.

The Climate Bonds Initiative provides a voluntary certification scheme for sustainability-linked debt instruments, using science-based criteria to verify that corporate transition plans and performance targets are consistent with limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C. Certification is available for single instruments or programmatic series, provided the issuer is a legal entity and the activities fall under existing Climate Bonds Standard Sector Criteria. The scheme offers two labels: 'Aligned' (Level 1) for those already aligned with 1.5°C pathways, and 'Transition' (Level 2) for those with plans to achieve alignment by 2030. The process requires a Certification Agreement, a Certification Information Form, and a Verification Report, with mandatory annual verification.

The document argues that climate coverage must move beyond problem-focused reporting to include evidence-based solutions. It categorizes climate solutions into policy, economy, technology, civil society, and culture, urging journalists to prioritize the political and economic battles over purely technological fixes. The guide emphasizes the urgency for marginalized communities and provides specific examples, such as the US Inflation Reduction Act, to illustrate how to analyze the effectiveness and limitations of climate policies.

The We Mean Business Coalition's framework for Responsible Policy Engagement (RPE) addresses the 'advocacy gap' where corporate climate commitments are not matched by their political influence. It defines RPE as engagement that supports policy interventions to reduce emissions in line with net zero by 2050. The report identifies drivers for RPE, including investor pressure via the Global Standard on Responsible Climate Lobbying and increased scrutiny from civil society and regulators. It outlines a business case for RPE based on risk reduction, regulatory certainty, and reputation. The core of the document is a resource library categorized into five action areas: committing to speak up, establishing governance, direct engagement, aligning trade associations, and allocating advocacy spending. It emphasizes the 'ambition loop,' where corporate advocacy spurs ambitious government policy, which in turn enables companies to meet their own climate targets.

The document outlines the application of the GHG Protocol's three scopes of emissions—direct (Scope 1), indirect energy (Scope 2), and value chain (Scope 3)—within a corporate accounting context. It emphasizes using financial reporting boundaries and existing ERP systems to automate data collection from invoices, thereby improving data quality and auditability. The guide details three methods for Scope 3 upstream emissions: spend-based, activity-based, and supplier-specific, while noting the challenges of downstream calculations. It also introduces the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) standards IFRS S1 and S2, which require climate-related disclosures and GHG emissions reporting to be aligned with financial statements.

The document argues that climate coverage must expand beyond problem-focused reporting to include solutions to empower audiences and policymakers. It defines solutions journalism as rigorous, evidence-based reporting that investigates the effectiveness and limitations of responses to the climate crisis. The guide emphasizes equity and justice, noting that marginalized communities—including indigenous peoples, who manage lands containing "approximately the 80% of the biodiversity that remains in the world"—are often the most impacted yet least responsible for the crisis. It categorizes potential story leads into five areas: policy and government (e.g., carbon pricing and subsidies), economy and business (e.g., scrutinizing "greenwash" and "net zero" claims), technologies and practices (distinguishing between mitigation and adaptation), civil society (evaluating the "theory of change" behind activism), and culture (the role of arts and celebrities). The guide concludes that while not all reporting should be solutions-oriented, integrating this mindset is essential to providing a complete picture of the climate emergency.

The Climate Solutions Reporting Guide, produced by Covering Climate Now and Solutions Journalism Network, argues that while problem-focused reporting is necessary, newsrooms must broaden their coverage to include solutions to empower audiences and policymakers. It advocates for a rigorous approach that interrogates the effectiveness and limitations of proposed solutions rather than 'cheerleading'. The guide emphasizes equity and justice, noting that marginalized communities often possess effective climate action records despite contributing the least to the crisis. It organizes potential story ideas into five categories: politics and government, economics and business, technologies and practices, civil society, and culture. Key technical distinctions are provided between 'mitigation' (reducing emissions and drawing down existing gases) and 'adaptation' (increasing resilience to unavoidable impacts).

The document outlines how to integrate conflict sensitivity and peacebuilding into the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) process, emphasizing the mutual reinforcement of climate resilience and peace. It identifies six enabling factors—leadership, data, financing, institutional arrangements, stakeholder engagement, and capacity development—and provides specific entry points across the planning, implementation, and monitoring phases to ensure adaptation actions do not exacerbate tensions and instead contribute to sustainable peace.

The document argues that climate change and conflict are mutually reinforcing, and that adaptation planning can break this cycle if it is conflict-sensitive. It outlines six enabling factors—leadership, data, finance, institutional arrangements, stakeholder engagement, and capacity building—necessary for successful NAPs in fragile states. The guide provides a detailed framework for integrating conflict analysis into the three main phases of the NAP process: planning, implementation, and monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL).

The document outlines how to integrate conflict sensitivity and peacebuilding into the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) process. It identifies six enabling factors—leadership, data, finance, institutional arrangements, stakeholder engagement, and capacity development—and provides specific entry points across the planning, implementation, and monitoring phases to ensure climate adaptation does not exacerbate tensions and instead supports long-term peace.

The guide outlines five principles for corporate climate leadership: reducing emissions in own business, cutting land-based emissions in value chains, investing in nature-based solutions beyond value chains, ensuring responsible policy engagement, and reporting transparently. It emphasizes that investments in nature-based solutions, such as high-quality carbon credits, must complement rather than replace deep decarbonization efforts. The document argues that scaling these investments is essential to meet Paris Agreement goals, noting that nature-based solutions currently receive only 3% of climate finance despite representing about 30% of the climate solution.

The document advocates for the use of creative participatory methods to include disadvantaged groups—such as women, the elderly, the disabled, and youth—in transport planning across Africa. It highlights that a lack of investment in non-motorized transport (NMT) infrastructure forces a reliance on motorized vehicles, which negatively impacts air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. The guide aims to provide low-resource tools to improve transport outcomes and build resilience against climate change impacts on infrastructure and mobility.

The document advises journalists to avoid cynicism when covering COP27, urging them to humanize and localize stories while holding powerful actors accountable. It emphasizes the critical nature of the 1.5-degree-C target and the central role of 'loss and damage' payments from rich to poor countries as a matter of climate justice.

The document emphasizes that gender equality and women's empowerment are catalysts for progress in agriculture, health, and climate change adaptation, yet significant gaps persist in asset ownership and governance. It warns that 'gender-blind' research and data create a 'cycle of invisibility' that reinforces existing inequities and produces policies that primarily benefit dominant social groups. The note advocates for an intersectional approach in R4D to improve the quality of science and generate more equitable outcomes in food systems.

The toolkit argues that rights-based approaches lead to more effective and legitimate climate outcomes. It outlines a three-step process for integrating rights into NDCs: inclusive planning, transparent communication of how rights informed that planning, and reflecting human rights obligations in implementation and monitoring. The document provides specific recommendations across seven thematic areas: ambition, participatory planning, general human rights integration, gender mainstreaming, Indigenous Peoples' rights, land tenure, and just transition. It emphasizes that states must align their climate ambition with the 1.5°C target to fulfill human rights obligations and should account for all emissions under their jurisdiction, including extraterritorial ones. The toolkit includes guiding questions and illustrative examples from the NDCs of Canada, Mexico, Vanuatu, Nepal, Costa Rica, Bolivia, and Chile to demonstrate best practices in human rights-based climate action.

The document argues that climate action must be aligned with human rights to be effective and legitimate. It provides a framework for integrating these rights into NDCs, focusing on scientific ambition, inclusive public participation, gender equality, the rights of Indigenous Peoples, land tenure, and a just transition for workers.

The guide defines Climate Transition Action Plans (CTAPs) as forward-looking, near-term action plans distinct from backward-looking ESG disclosures. It establishes four core components for a comprehensive CTAP: emissions reduction strategies, governance and business strategy integration, public policy advocacy, and just transition. To support implementation, the document provides a foundations checklist, a CTAP template, and a progress template, emphasizing that these plans must be iterative and grounded in science-based targets to ensure corporate climate credibility.

The document suggests three primary applications for its findings: challenging existing assumptions about climate communication to better understand the role of values, reaching and motivating diverse groups for a solution-oriented societal climate discourse, and demanding climate policies that prioritize people's core concerns regarding the climate crisis. It also encourages users to conduct their own research on the six identified types.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) outlines a framework of ten 'guard rails' to ensure that the voluntary use of nature-based solution (NBS) carbon credits supports the 1.5°C warming limit and protects biodiversity and human rights. The guidance distinguishes between using credits to 'counterbalance' unabated emissions—which requires a science-based reduction pathway—and using them to 'contribute' to a jurisdiction's climate mitigation. WRI emphasizes a shift from project-level to jurisdictional-scale REDD+ credits and mandates transparent reporting aligned with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol.