Search Climate Insights Directory

The Union of Concerned Scientists interviewed 19 legal experts to identify critical research gaps in climate litigation. The report categorizes these into three priority areas—attribution science, human health, and economic modeling—and five strategic areas, including greenwashing and emissions accounting. A central cross-cutting theme is the need for research on losses and damages. The authors emphasize that while IPCC reports provide a foundation, litigation requires more granular, geographically specific data and better communication between scientists and legal teams to overcome barriers such as differing timelines and data gaps in the Global South.

The report outlines critical research needs across natural sciences, social sciences, and legal analysis to support climate litigation. Key gaps include the need for localized attribution science, investigations into corporate disinformation and internal knowledge (including non-fossil fuel industries), and the quantification of economic damages. It also emphasizes the necessity of 'translational work' to bridge the communication gap between scientists, legal practitioners, and judges, particularly regarding legally relevant timeframes and standards of evidence.

The paper finds a significant gap between the necessity of integrating climate risks and actual investor practice in Southeast Asia's power sector. While physical risks are generally well-understood and factored into due diligence, transition risks—including policy, technology, and reputational risks—are often ignored or superficially addressed. Investors frequently use long-term Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) to shift climate-related liabilities to state-owned utilities. The study identifies institutional habits, the need to deploy large amounts of capital quickly, and limited financial governance as primary barriers to shifting investment from fossil fuels to renewables.

The research examines renewable energy (RE) procurement among 101 corporate and 185 SME consumers across five Indian states. It finds a dominant preference for on-site solutions, with large corporations favoring open access off-site projects due to higher capital and energy needs. Green Tariffs (GTs) face low awareness—up to 82% of corporate consumers and 94% of SMEs are unaware of them—and poor acceptability, as 62% of corporate and 55% of SME consumers are unwilling to pay a premium for GTs. The paper recommends that state energy departments restructure GT models with lower premiums and fiscal incentives, while utilities should act as information disseminators to prevent C&I consumers from migrating from the grid.