Search Climate Insights Directory

The statement criticizes current financial institution commitments to the Paris Agreement as lacking concrete action and proposes two primary principles for alignment: adopting a commitment by COP26 that all supported projects and companies align with 1.5°C, and implementing processes to measure, disclose, and phase out financed emissions based on science-based targets.

The document highlights the critical link between air pollution, human health, and climate change, specifically focusing on short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs). It argues that because air pollution has a more immediate and tangible impact on public health than long-term climate change, it can serve as a powerful catalyst for policy action. The brief details the health burdens of PM2.5 and tropospheric ozone, including millions of asthma-related hospital visits and pre-term births. To facilitate this, the Stockholm Environment Institute promotes the Low Emissions Analysis Platform (LEAP) and Integrated Benefits Calculator (IBC) to help cities and nations model emission projections and quantify health and climate benefits simultaneously.

The statement argues that AXA and Amundi/Crédit Agricole are acting hypocritically by maintaining public commitments to the Paris Agreement and the Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance while voting against a climate resolution for Total. It highlights that Total's current plans include increasing hydrocarbon production by 12% between 2018 and 2030 and allocating 80% of its capex to fossil fuels by 2030, which contradicts the 1.5°C warming limit.

Reclaim Finance highlights a contradiction between the public climate pledges of AXA and Amundi/Crédit Agricole and their decision to vote against a shareholder resolution calling for Total to improve its climate actions. The document argues that Total's current strategy—which includes increasing hydrocarbon production and maintaining high fossil fuel capex—is not aligned with a 1.5°C trajectory, making the investors' opposition to the resolution hypocritical given their stated goals of carbon neutrality and Paris Agreement alignment.

The report asserts that Australia's climate policies and fossil fuel exports are causing the deterioration of the Great Barrier Reef's Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). It argues that Australia is failing its obligations under the World Heritage Convention by not pursuing a well-below-1.5°C pathway and relying on 'legally baseless' carryover credits to meet emissions targets. The document calls for the Great Barrier Reef to be inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger and for the Australian government to phase out fossil fuel production and exports.

The document examines the climate impact of the European Central Bank's (ECB) asset purchase programs, specifically the Corporate Sector Purchase Programme (CSPP) and the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme (PEPP). It highlights a significant lack of transparency regarding the value of held assets and argues that the ECB's 'market neutrality' principle results in a portfolio heavily weighted toward carbon-intensive sectors. The report identifies 38 fossil fuel companies in the ECB's portfolio, including 10 linked to coal and several majors like Shell, Total, and Eni. It concludes with recommendations for the ECB to exclude companies without 1.5°C-aligned exit plans and to adopt a 'brown taxonomy' to better target asset purchases.

The report analyzes the ECB's corporate asset purchase programs (CSPP and PEPP), finding that they provide significant financial support to companies active in coal, oil, and gas. It criticizes the ECB's lack of transparency regarding asset values and argues that the principle of 'market neutrality' creates an anti-climate bias by favoring carbon-intensive sectors. The author recommends that the ECB exclude fossil fuel companies without phase-out plans and align its monetary policy with the 1.5°C trajectory of the Paris Agreement.

The authors argue that governments must plan the decline of coal, oil, and gas production to meet the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C limit and avoid further market chaos. They highlight a significant 'production gap,' noting that planned extraction by 2030 exceeds climate-compatible levels by 60% for oil, 70% for gas, and 280% for coal. The text advocates for a 'just transition' that supports fossil fuel workers through diversification, the removal of consumption subsidies—which totaled at least $400 billion in 2018—and the use of green investment to ensure community viability.

A joint letter from various environmental and climate organizations calling on global insurance associations to ensure COVID-19 stimulus packages support a low-carbon transition rather than fossil fuel industries, while urging the insurance sector to end coverage for coal and oil and gas expansion.

A joint letter from several financial and environmental organizations calling on the NGFS to prevent central banks from supporting high carbon emitters during the COVID-19 crisis. The authors argue that current liquidity measures risk returning to "business as usual" and propose specific actions, including the exclusion of polluting assets from collateral frameworks and quantitative easing programs, and the development of green and brown taxonomies to mitigate systemic climate-related financial risks.

A coalition of 76 organizations urges UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee to hold state parties accountable for their contributions to climate change. The authors argue that the World Heritage Convention requires states to align their national policies, including fossil fuel exports, with the 1.5°C warming limit to protect the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of heritage sites. The statement provides examples of other UN treaty bodies making similar mitigation recommendations to countries such as Australia, Argentina, and Germany.

The World Resources Institute outlines four critical areas for the Green Climate Fund's 2020-2023 Strategic Plan: aligning mitigation ambition with the 1.5°C goal through transformational metrics, clarifying adaptation and loss and damage approaches, balancing the speed of private finance mobilization with portfolio quality, and improving the accessibility of direct access funding for developing country institutions.

The We Mean Business coalition calls for an 'ambition loop' where government policy and private sector leadership reinforce each other to tackle climate change. It highlights that over 1,140 companies, representing US$20.1 trillion in market cap, have joined coalition initiatives, while 17 countries have already established net-zero 2050 targets. The text emphasizes the need for governments to set policies aligned with a 1.5°C trajectory to provide businesses the confidence to invest in the transition.

The 2019 Scorecard on Insurance, Coal and Climate Change reveals a growing trend of insurance companies exiting the coal sector. While 17 insurers have limited or ended cover for coal projects—controlling 9.5% of the primary insurance market and 46.4% of the reinsurance market—significant gaps remain. Most policies exclude new projects but continue to cover existing operations. Swiss Re and Zurich are identified as leaders in underwriting, while Legal & General leads in broader climate leadership. Conversely, many US and East Asian insurers are described as 'missing in action,' continuing to provide cover and investment for coal. The report argues that as insurance becomes harder to obtain, coal projects become less bankable, accelerating the industry's demise.

The document identifies critical knowledge gaps in the official Global Stocktake (GST) process, particularly regarding the definitions of equitable implementation, Paris-consistent financial flows, and adequate adaptation responses. It recommends that an independent Global Stocktake (iGST) focus on synthesizing existing data, fostering a common understanding of these ill-defined concepts, and providing forward-looking, country-specific recommendations to raise climate ambition.

The report examines the 'concern-action gap' within the scientific and engineering communities regarding the climate crisis. It argues that the credibility of climate research is undermined when researchers maintain high-carbon lifestyles, such as frequent air travel for conferences. Through a straw poll of 153 respondents, the document finds that while many scientists are adopting plant-based diets and reducing car use, a significant number still struggle to align their lives with the 1.5°C pathway. It also discusses the role of civil disobedience and activism as a means for scientists to 'walk the talk' and counter the influence of fossil fuel interests.

The document criticizes the lack of substantial progress at the UN climate negotiations in Bonn, specifically regarding the rules for carbon markets and attempts by some countries to block discussions on limiting warming to 1.5 Celsius. It calls for world leaders to align national commitments with the 1.5 Celsius goal at the upcoming UN Climate Action Summit and highlights the need for increased financial contributions to the Green Climate Fund. Positive developments noted include the UK passing a net-zero emissions law and investors demanding urgent climate action.

The Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) provides a suite of tools and analyses to help countries meet their Paris Agreement commitments. Key research highlights include the potential for NDCs to include fossil fuel production phase-downs, the need for better guidance on the 'enhanced transparency framework', and the importance of 'fair shares' in achieving a 1.5°C limit. SEI's technical tools, such as LEAP for energy planning, the NDC Explorer for tracking ambitions, and the NDC-SDG Connections tool, aim to bridge the gap between climate science and national policy. Specific country analyses show that Kenya requires significant investment for low-carbon energy pathways, while sub-Saharan African nations could better leverage private sector investment for agricultural adaptation.

The document outlines the legal obligations of States as defined by the ICJ, emphasizing that climate action is a legal duty grounded in science and the 1.5°C limit. It provides specific guidance on applying these rulings to COP30 agenda items, including finance, mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage, while highlighting the necessity of phasing out fossil fuels and ensuring NDCs reflect the highest possible ambition.

The document argues that the petrochemical industry's expansion is unsustainable and harmful, urging financial institutions to stop financing petrochemical expansion, require client transition plans, and adopt environmental justice policies. It highlights the severe health and environmental impacts in US 'sacrifice zones' and the financial risks of stranded assets.