Search Climate Insights Directory

The report examines four EU climate regulations—the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), the EU ETS for Shipping, and Methane Regulations—and their disproportionate effects on African economies. It highlights risks such as GDP reduction, loss of export revenue, and increased maritime costs, while calling for financial support, technical capacity building, and a shift toward global rather than unilateral regulatory frameworks.

The report analyzes the potential for California to meet its 2045 CDR target of 75 MMT CO2e by diversifying its portfolio with Biomass Carbon Removal and Storage (BiCRS) systems. Using seven scenarios based on cost and social acceptance, the study finds that BiCRS can remove between 13 and 75 MMT CO2e annually. Scenarios utilizing high biomass availability estimates show that BiCRS alone could meet the state's target, potentially reducing costs and increasing bioenergy and job production by up to 10 times compared to the DAC-heavy 2022 Scoping Plan. However, scenarios with limited forest biomass availability fail to meet the target. The report highlights a trade-off between optimizing biomass for CDR versus sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) production and recommends expanding the state's CDR portfolio beyond hydrogen-based BECCS.

The report examines the social dimensions of deploying carbon capture and storage (CCS) in Poland, emphasizing that technical feasibility alone is insufficient without a 'social license to operate.' It highlights the risks of public opposition—citing failures in the Netherlands and Australia—and contrasts them with successful engagement in Japan and Norway. The authors identify low public awareness and safety concerns as primary barriers in Poland and recommend a shift from top-down communication to partnership-based engagement, including early stakeholder involvement, transparent data sharing, and tangible local economic benefits.

The document examines how the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system enables foreign investors, particularly from the fossil fuel industry, to claim compensation from states for climate policies. It highlights the 'regulatory chill' effect, where the threat of costly awards—which have increased from an average of $25 million (1994-2003) to over $250 million (2014-2023)—deters governments from phasing out fossil fuels. The briefing references July 2025 advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to affirm state duties to regulate polluting conduct. It concludes that current reform efforts, including the EU and UK withdrawals from the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), are insufficient due to sunset clauses and inadequate carve-outs, and recommends coordinated UN-level action to eliminate ISDS threats to climate and human rights obligations.

The report outlines a framework for credible sovereign transition planning based on five elements: robust targets, a 'whole-of-government' approach, green public financial management, integrated policy tools, and transparency. It addresses the challenge of 'debt overhang' in both developed and emerging markets, suggesting alternatives such as excluding transition spending from deficit calculations and utilizing GSS+ bonds. The document also examines the roles of national development banks, sovereign wealth funds, and central banks in mobilizing private capital and providing low-cost financing for climate action.

The document examines Namibia's transition toward becoming an oil exporter, highlighting the gap between government growth targets and industry realities. While significant offshore discoveries have been made, the report warns that relying on fossil fuels may divert resources from sustainable development and renewable energy, especially as global demand declines and technical challenges persist.

The report analyzes the convergence of nature-based solutions (NbS) and adaptation and resilience (A&R) finance, highlighting a critical funding gap where annual global nature finance flows of USD 200 billion are only one-third of the amount needed by 2030. Through five case studies—including the Acumen Resilient Agriculture Fund and Wildfire Resilience Insurance—the document identifies key barriers such as the complexity of measuring outcomes in changing climates, the lack of standardized metrics, and the high upfront costs of resilience interventions. It argues that while carbon credits and regulatory standards like the EU Deforestation Regulation provide pathways, scaling requires a shift from reactive to preventive investment mindsets and the development of credible, localized impact metrics. The report concludes that reforming the development finance architecture and leveraging global frameworks like COP30 are essential to mainstreaming nature-based adaptation.

The document provides a comprehensive introduction to the ETS2, a 'cap and trade' system starting in 2027 to reduce emissions in buildings and road transport by 42% relative to 2005 levels by 2030. It details the market mechanisms, including the Linear Reduction Factor and the Market Stability Reserve (MSR2), and emphasizes that carbon pricing must be paired with complementary policies—such as building renovations and EV electrification—to prevent price volatility and ensure a just transition. The guide also describes the Social Climate Fund (SCF), a €65 billion mechanism designed to support vulnerable households facing energy and transport poverty, and analyzes the distribution and potential misuse of ETS2 revenues among member states.

The report examines 'coal transition credits' as a financial tool for early coal plant closure in Southeast Asia. It finds significant expert skepticism, with only 2 out of 10 experts viewing them as effective. Major risks identified include carbon leakage, baseline inflation, and 'perverse incentives' that may reward polluters. The document concludes that CTCs are not a reliable exit strategy and emphasizes the need for systemic public policy and funding over market-based offsets.

The report argues that transnational corporations (TNCs) like Chevron, Total, and Shell maintain a 'global architecture of impunity' through sophisticated lobbying networks that capture international governance. It specifically highlights the role of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) in influencing the UN Human Rights Council's negotiations for a binding treaty on TNCs and human rights. The document details environmental and human rights violations in the Global South, including oil pollution in Ecuador and Nigeria, and fossil fuel projects in Uganda and Mozambique, while demanding the exclusion of corporate lobbyists from treaty negotiations to ensure accountability.

The report argues that TNCs like Chevron, Total, and Shell maintain a 'system of impunity' by leveraging powerful lobbying organizations, such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), to shape international law. It documents severe human rights and environmental abuses linked to these companies in Ecuador, Mozambique, Uganda, Nigeria, and Palestine. The document specifically critiques the current UN negotiation process for the Binding Treaty, claiming that the inclusion of corporate lobbyists as 'stakeholders' creates a conflict of interest that dilutes accountability mechanisms and prioritizes corporate profit over human rights and planetary health.

The report argues that multinational corporations use lobbying networks like the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) to undermine the creation of a legally binding UN treaty on business and human rights. It documents environmental and human rights abuses by Chevron in Ecuador, Total in Uganda and Mozambique, and Shell in Nigeria, illustrating a systemic 'architecture of impunity'. The authors call for the exclusion of corporate lobbyists from UN negotiations to ensure the treaty prioritizes human rights over corporate profit.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) analyses the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF), a hybrid investment fund led by Brazil to be launched at COP30. FoEI argues that the TFFF's 'blended finance' model, which offers US $4 per hectare for forest preservation, commodifies nature and prioritises private investor returns over the rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs). The paper warns that the facility may create a 'vicious cycle of debt' for Global South countries and calls for direct financial reparations and land reform instead of profit-driven conservation schemes.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) argues that the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) promotes the 'financierization of nature' by treating forests as financial assets. FoEI criticizes the TFFF's structure for prioritizing private investor returns over conservation, creating a potential debt cycle for Global South countries, and maintaining colonial power asymmetries through the involvement of the World Bank and other international financial institutions. While acknowledging the TFFF's commitment to allocate 20% of payments to Indigenous Peoples and local communities (PICL), FoEI deems this insufficient and calls for a systemic shift toward community-led forest management, debt cancellation, and historical reparations.

The 2025 Forest Declaration Assessment reports that global forests remain in crisis, with 8.07 million hectares of deforestation in 2024, leaving the world 63% off track for 2030 goals. While some natural recovery and national reforms in countries like Brazil and Indonesia show promise, the report finds that corporate commitments are largely unimplemented and public finance for forests is dwarfed by environmentally harmful agricultural subsidies. It calls for a shift from voluntary pledges to mandatory regulations and inclusive governance that secures land rights for Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

The 2025 Forest Declaration Assessment reports that global forests remain in crisis, with 8.07 million hectares lost in 2024 and a 63% gap relative to the 2030 zero-deforestation goal. While some national reforms in Brazil, Colombia, and Indonesia show promise, corporate action remains largely insufficient, and public finance for forests is dwarfed by harmful agricultural subsidies. The report emphasizes that current voluntary corporate commitments are inadequate and calls for mandatory regulations, inclusive governance for indigenous peoples, and a fundamental shift in the global financial system to prioritize forest stability over extractive production.

The 2025 Forest Declaration Assessment reports that global forests remain in crisis, with deforestation and degradation continuing at high rates. Despite some progress in natural regeneration and specific national reforms in Brazil, Colombia, and Indonesia, the report finds that corporate commitments are largely insufficient and public and private financing remains drastically misaligned with forest protection goals. It calls for systemic changes, including mandatory regulations and inclusive governance, to reverse these trends by 2030.

The document analyzes the South African Climate Change Act as a framework for transforming the food system, which contributes approximately 20% of national emissions and is highly vulnerable to climate shocks. It identifies specific legal avenues—such as the National Adaptation Strategy and Plan (NASP), municipal climate response plans, and the Presidential Climate Commission—where farmers, workers, and civil society can intervene to promote agroecology, land rights, and food price stability. The author emphasizes that while the Act provides the legal framework, it does not guarantee funding or specific ground-level obligations, making active public participation essential to ensure a 'just transition' that protects vulnerable groups including women, youth, and smallholder farmers.

The report examines eight innovative financial instruments—including the Adaptation Benefit Mechanism, biodiversity credits, carbon taxes, carbon trading, credit guarantees, debt-for-nature/climate resilience swaps, pooled investment funds, and sovereign green/sustainability-linked bonds—to bridge the climate finance gap in developing countries. It identifies common barriers such as limited institutional capacity, lack of robust project pipelines, and underdeveloped local capital markets. The document emphasizes that while these instruments can signal a government's commitment to climate action, their success depends on a supportive enabling environment characterized by effective leadership, clear taxonomies, and robust climate data. For least developed countries (LDCs), the report suggests a phased approach, first strengthening basic financial and legal prerequisites before focusing on 'climate investability'. It concludes with specific recommendations for donors and development partners to provide technical assistance, anchor investments, and pilot projects to scale up private sector mobilization.

The report examines the 'renaissance' of green industrial policy, defining it as government intervention to achieve environmental goals alongside economic growth. Through case studies of China, the US, the EU, Canada, Brazil, and South Korea, it highlights a shift toward interventionism driven by climate urgency and geopolitical rivalry. The authors argue that while these policies can accelerate decarbonization and lower technology costs globally, they risk increasing international inequality, creating market distortions, and triggering trade conflicts, particularly for developing nations with limited fiscal capacity.