Search Climate Insights Directory

The paper argues that the effectiveness of land-based mitigation technologies (LMTs) depends on more than technical estimates. It advocates for a multilevel modelling framework that combines numerical data with stakeholder knowledge to address environmental constraints, social equity, and competing land uses, ensuring that climate action is both realistic and just.

The RMI framework establishes rules for the issuance, transfer, and retirement of Book-and-Claim Units (BCUs) for low-emissions iron and steel. It introduces a dual functional-unit system (iron and crude steel) with eligibility thresholds anchored to ResponsibleSteel's Decarbonization Progress Level 3 (DPL3). To prevent fossil lock-in, the framework mandates route-specific criteria, including a 2035/2040 phase-out for BF-BOF eligibility and strict 90% capture rates for CCS/CCUS. It defines rigorous accounting methods—direct and enhanced substitution—to prevent over-claiming and double counting, while prohibiting on-product claims to maintain the incentive for physical green steel procurement.

The authors argue that traditional 'primary energy' accounting is flawed because it ignores energy quality and conversion losses, creating a 'primary energy fallacy'. By reframing the system from the consumer's perspective and focusing on 'flows' (change) rather than 'stocks' (totals), the paper identifies four 'battles' of the energy transition. It concludes that 'electrotech' is winning the battles for electron supply, useful work, and useful heat due to superior thermodynamic efficiency, which significantly reduces the total primary energy required to meet human development needs.

The document proposes a 'communication justice' framework to ensure that digital transformation supports climate resilience. It identifies critical gaps in connectivity, language accessibility, and data governance that hinder the delivery of climate services. The author advocates for treating communication rights as essential climate infrastructure, suggesting practical measures such as community-led early warning systems, rights-respecting data commons, and accountable AI to ensure that the most vulnerable populations can access and act upon life-saving climate information.

The report examines country platforms (CPs) as vehicles to integrate climate finance with national development goals in emerging economies. It argues that CPs must be country-led and grounded in macro-fiscal analysis to avoid debt vulnerabilities and ensure social inclusivity. Using the South African Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) as a primary example, the document outlines criteria for effectiveness—including whole-of-government approaches and credible project pipelines—and proposes a four-quadrant analytical framework to guide their design. It also highlights the role of philanthropy in funding early-stage technical work and the necessity of overcoming structural path dependencies to achieve genuine economic diversification.

This working paper examines the tension between quantitative 'precisionism' and qualitative 'groundtruthing' in climate-risk mapping within the global South, proposing a framework called 'epistemic diplomacy' to integrate both evidence types for more equitable and effective policy interventions.

The report examines Sudan's history of failed transitional justice efforts and proposes a multi-pillar framework—including mental health support, truth-finding, and criminal accountability—to achieve sustainable peace. It emphasizes that while a cessation of hostilities is ideal for full implementation, certain elements like psychosocial support should begin immediately. The authors advocate for a victim-centered, Sudanese-led process that integrates traditional justice mechanisms and maintains a transnational scope to address harms involving South Sudan and the diaspora.

The paper argues that emerging clean energy technologies face a 'missing middle'—a gap where projects are too large for venture capital but too risky for institutional project finance. To address this, the authors introduce a 'systemic bankability' framework consisting of nine risk factors: construction cost overruns, technology performance, revenue adequacy, regulatory uncertainty, enabling infrastructure limitations, social opposition, supply chain limitations, commercial insurance unavailability, and delivery system limitations. The authors note that while solar and onshore wind eventually achieved systemic bankability, the process was too slow for current climate goals, and even established technologies can see their bankability erode due to new bottlenecks like grid interconnection delays and social opposition.

The report argues that standard top-down cost estimation methods for energy transitions often overlook socio-spatial factors and marginalized groups. It proposes a new framework that identifies specific losses (recognitional justice), determines preventative and transformative spending (restorative justice), assigns cost burdens (distributive justice), and ensures stakeholder consensus (procedural justice). Using the planned early retirement of the Cirebon 1 coal-fired power plant as a case study, the report demonstrates how to map direct, indirect, and induced impacts across individuals, companies, and governments to more accurately calculate the financial requirements of a just transition.

The paper proposes the minerals-energy-food (MEF) complex to address failures in existing natural resource governance frameworks, specifically the inability to differentiate between physical resources and traded commodities. It highlights how current resource flows create power asymmetries where extraction occurs in low-income countries while benefits concentrate in wealthy nations, citing the Democratic Republic of Congo's cobalt mining as an example. The authors argue that fragmented governance silos and complex supply chains transmit risks across borders, necessitating an integrated approach to avoid conflict and inequality while supporting climate action.

The document argues that while financed emissions are essential for accountability, they are insufficient for identifying climate-aligned investment opportunities because they ignore transition drivers and enabling technologies. It recommends a pragmatic framework where financial institutions continue portfolio-level tracking via financed emissions but supplement them with production- or finance-based metrics and corporate transition assessments to improve transparency and actionability.

The report addresses the need for a transparent mechanism to measure the workforce transition in Canada following the enactment of the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act in June 2024. It argues that tracking must go beyond counting 'green jobs' to include job quality, social equity, and governance. The authors propose a framework based on 'Risk, Response, and Results,' identifying 18 key indicators—such as community susceptibility, Indigenous partnership in governance, and sustainable job compensation—to monitor federal progress. The report emphasizes that these indicators require operational definitions and a whole-of-government approach to data collection to ensure the transition is equitable and aligned with the Paris Agreement.

The report examines the limitations of rigid debt rules in emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs), proposing a transition to a 'constrained discretion regime'. It argues that current rules-based approaches often lead to complexity and unenforceability, particularly when multiple fiscal rules are layered incrementally. The authors recommend replacing rigid ceilings with flexible 'debt anchors' embedded in a broader institutional framework featuring independent fiscal councils, transparent disclosure rules, and a clear distinction between long-term sustainability goals and short-term budgetary instruments.

This executive summary from the Climate Policy Initiative proposes a framework for 'urban-inclusive country platforms' to bridge the financing gap for urban climate action. It argues that national governments should integrate subnational and urban priorities into the design and governance of country platforms to better align development finance with local mitigation and resilience needs.

The document advocates for transition-specific alignment targets—sector-specific metrics like zero-emission vehicle sales—to overcome the limitations of traditional GHG emission reduction targets, particularly regarding scope 3 emissions. It identifies risks in current GHG reporting, such as creative accounting and inadequate 'spend method' calculations, and recommends that standard setters develop consistent definitions and sectoral pathways to integrate these targets into national regulations and voluntary frameworks.

The briefing introduces a three-step framework designed to move adaptation finance beyond simple fund allocation toward achieving equitable outcomes and structural change. It argues that current international funding often fails to reach the most vulnerable populations and frequently ignores the root causes of vulnerability. The framework guides actors through defining their equity goals, selecting guiding principles, and addressing eight specific elements of distributive equity across the project cycle. These elements range from ensuring fair allocation and resource access to more ambitious goals like protecting human rights, addressing intersectionality, and enabling decolonization to dismantle systemic drivers of marginalization.

The document outlines a four-step process for utility climate risk planning: identification, quantitative assessment, mitigation, and risk distribution. It emphasizes the need for utilities to move beyond siloed resilience plans by incorporating both physical risks (e.g., extreme weather) and transition risks (e.g., carbon taxes, policy changes) into core planning documents like Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs). The authors advocate for the use of high-resolution, long-term climate datasets (30+ years) to accurately model extreme events and argue that clean energy portfolios reduce financial volatility for residential customers compared to fossil-heavy portfolios. Finally, it provides actionable recommendations for regulators to mandate risk assessments, create financial incentives for transitioning away from fossil assets, and explore self-insurance funds to protect low- and middle-income customers from catastrophic costs.

The report argues that current credit ratings and ESG frameworks fail to adequately measure a company's environmental impact, creating a gap that hinders transition finance for hard-to-abate sectors like steel and cement. To address this, the Climate Policy Initiative proposes a Carbon Rating Framework that evaluates a company's carbon emission intensity over a three-to-five-year horizon. The framework suggests a weighted approach combining past emission intensity (indicatively 70%) and projected future intensity (indicatively 30%), the latter being a function of projected emissions and revenue. The authors propose a 10-point rating scale based on the distribution of carbon intensity among companies reporting under SEBI's Business Responsibility & Sustainability Report (BRSR). The framework focuses on Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions at the company level and suggests a composite rating system to account for sector-specific challenges in hard-to-abate industries.

The text outlines a framework for European cities to transition to carbon-free status, focusing on the use of greenery and eco-designed photovoltaics. It argues that promoting net-zero or positive electricity generation can replace fossil fuels, although it notes uncertainties regarding actor engagement and practical implementation of the energy transition. The proposed approach utilizes variable climatic conditions to establish specific targets, performance indicators, and milestones for urban transformation.

The Climate Bonds Initiative introduces a tool for financial institutions to evaluate corporate transition maturity across five categories, ranging from 'No Action' to 'Net Zero Achieved'. The system uses specific indicators across commitment, emission targets, implementation strategies, governance, and performance to determine if a company's financing can be labeled as 'transition finance' or 'green finance'. It emphasizes the need for science-based benchmarks, trackable annual actions, and board-level governance, while providing a weighted scoring method for companies with multiple business activities.