Search Climate Insights Directory

The report finds that a majority of registered U.S. voters prefer candidates who support action on global warming and support various clean energy policies, including a transition to 100% clean energy by 2050. While there is broad support for the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 after it is described, awareness of the law remains low. The findings highlight a significant trust deficit toward fossil fuel companies and a general perception that the U.S. government is not responding effectively to climate change. Despite this, actual political and consumer activism remains relatively low, and collective efficacy—the belief that citizens can influence government and corporate action—is limited to less than half of the electorate.

The report presents survey data from October 2023 on the attitudes of 906 registered U.S. voters. It finds broad support for clean energy policies and a preference for candidates who support climate action, though significant political polarization remains. While majorities support the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and transitioning to clean energy by 2050, trust in fossil fuel companies is low, and actual political and consumer activism remains relatively infrequent.

The document argues that existing governance structures are insufficient to manage the disruptive trade-offs of the green transition. It proposes 'eco-social contracts'—frameworks for action that integrate social and ecological guarantees—to rebuild trust between citizens and states. The report examines policy tools such as Green Deals, degrowth, and circular economy models, while advocating for deliberative democratic mechanisms like citizens' assemblies and participatory budgeting to create a legitimate mandate for systemic change.

The document argues that the Loss and Damage Fund must be established through transparent, fair, and inclusive processes to effectively support vulnerable countries. It emphasizes the need for flexible funding windows, participatory governance that empowers local communities, and a diverse range of financial instruments—primarily grants—to avoid increasing debt in affected nations. The brief highlights four critical trade-offs: scope versus coordination, participatory versus delegated governance, inclusive versus rapid decision-making, and accessibility versus oversight.

The document argues that the Loss and Damage Fund must be designed with transparency and inclusivity to be perceived as just by both donors and recipients. It emphasizes the need for flexible funding mechanisms, such as grants and programmatic approaches, to address underfunded areas like mental health services and ecosystem restoration. The brief highlights four critical trade-offs in the fund's setup: scope versus coordination, participatory versus delegated governance, inclusive versus rapid decision-making, and accessibility versus strict oversight. It recommends diversifying funding sources beyond public money to include philanthropic and private sectors, and suggests adopting multi-level governance structures to ensure funds reach the most marginalized local communities.

The document argues that the Loss and Damage Fund must be fair, transparent, and inclusive to effectively support vulnerable countries. It recommends a broad scope based on recipient-led needs assessments, participatory governance involving civil society, and the use of grants over loans. The authors highlight four critical trade-offs: scope versus coordination, participatory versus devolved governance, inclusive versus rapid decision-making, and accessibility versus oversight.

The report outlines recommendations for operationalizing the Loss and Damage (L&D) fund established at COP27, focusing on the perspectives of vulnerable countries and beneficiaries. Based on focus groups with representatives from Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), the document identifies on-the-ground needs, financial access bottlenecks, and necessary design features to ensure the fund is fair, inclusive, and effective for those in the Global South.

The report offers guidance on operationalising the Loss and Damage fund established at COP27, focusing on institutional arrangements, funding sources, and inclusivity. It emphasizes the need for the transitional committee to adopt inclusive and equitable procedures that incorporate perspectives from the most vulnerable populations to determine the fund's scope and design.

Climate finance for agrifood systems is critically low, representing only 4.3% of total project-level climate finance in 2019/20. The report highlights a massive investment gap, noting that current flows must increase at least sevenfold to meet conservative transition needs. While agriculture and forestry dominate project-level funding, essential mitigation areas like food loss and low-carbon diets are severely underfunded. The analysis reveals a heavy reliance on public funding (85%) and significant geographic disparities, with East Asia and the Pacific receiving the most finance, while South Asia and Latin America remain underserved relative to their emissions and vulnerability. The report advocates for repurposing harmful agricultural subsidies and leveraging private capital to scale climate-resilient and low-carbon food systems.

CIEL supports the draft declaration on the human right of international solidarity, noting its inclusion of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution. The organization emphasizes the obligation of developed states to provide resources for climate-related loss and damage and the duty of all states to counter corporate influence and misinformation in environmental policymaking while protecting civic space for civil society and Indigenous Peoples.

The report argues that current NDCs and financial frameworks are insufficient to reach net-zero emissions, particularly in developing and emerging economies facing high debt. It proposes nine principles for international climate finance, emphasizing that developed countries must scale up support based on common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR). Key recommendations include adopting bottom-up, sector-specific finance needs, utilizing innovative mechanisms like debt-for-climate swaps, and aligning finance with national policy processes to avoid carbon lock-ins. The report highlights the importance of 'just transitions' and the synergy between mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage funding.

The document argues that the Loss and Damage Fund must be grounded in human rights to effectively protect marginalized communities and provide substantive redress. It recommends a governance structure with representative board membership, the use of rights-based needs assessments, and the implementation of strict social and environmental safeguards. To ensure adequacy and equity, the authors advocate for public, grants-based funding derived from historic polluters and innovative sources like a Climate Damages Tax, rather than loans that increase debt in the Global South.

The document examines the constraints of the current international finance architecture for Africa, noting that between 2016 and 2020, the continent received only $19.5 billion in climate funding against annual adaptation needs of $30-50 billion. It proposes that the G20 can bridge this gap by developing green finance taxonomies, promoting risk sharing through multilateral development bank guarantees, and facilitating carbon pricing. The author advocates for the use of debt-for-climate swaps to alleviate debt burdens while funding nature conservation and the expansion of Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs), citing the South African model. Additionally, the paper highlights the role of natural gas as a transition fuel and the importance of investing in the AFOLU sector, which contributed 56% of Africa's total emissions in 2016.

The document outlines a human rights-based framework for the Loss and Damage Fund, emphasizing the need for inclusive governance, grants-based funding from historic polluters, and the provision of substantive redress for marginalized communities.

The report analyzes COP27 outcomes through a human rights lens, highlighting the breakthrough establishment of a Loss and Damage Fund and the first consensus-based mention of the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. However, it criticizes the failure to commit to a fossil fuel phase-out, the influence of fossil fuel lobbyists, and the 'unprecedented' restrictions on civil society participation imposed by the host country, Egypt. The document also notes missed opportunities in the Action Plan on Action for Climate Empowerment and the Gender Action Plan review, while calling for a rights-based approach to the Global Stocktake and Article 6.4 carbon market mechanisms.

The report finds that while global climate finance reached USD 1.3 trillion in 2021–2022, adaptation finance is diminishing in relative importance, accounting for only 5% of total flows. Developing countries face a significant funding gap, needing approximately USD 212 billion annually by 2030. In Africa, adaptation finance grew modestly by 14% to USD 13 billion annually, yet remains far below the estimated need of USD 53 billion per year. The analysis highlights an over-reliance on debt as the primary financial instrument and a critical lack of robust, adaptation-specific commitments from public financial institutions. Furthermore, it reveals a disconnect between adaptation finance and humanitarian aid, noting that the most fragile African states depend on emergency response funding because they struggle to access proactive adaptation finance.

Global Witness reports that at least 177 land and environmental defenders were murdered in 2022, with Latin America accounting for 88% of these cases. The report highlights the extreme danger faced by Indigenous peoples, who represented 36% of those killed, and identifies the Amazon as a critical hotspot where 22% of global killings occurred. It specifically examines the role of illegal gold mining in Brazil, Venezuela, and Peru, and the impact of the 'green transition' mineral boom in Southeast Asia. The document argues that impunity for these crimes is systemic and calls for stronger corporate accountability, specifically through the EU's Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.

Good Governance Africa evaluates COP27, noting the establishment of a fund for vulnerable developing countries as a major achievement but criticizing the lack of accountability from the Global North. The statement highlights that Africa is disproportionately affected by climate change despite contributing only 4% of global emissions. It identifies critical gaps in adaptation finance, noting that the $100 billion pledge remains unmet and that $300 billion is needed by 2030. The document also critiques African disunity over the role of gas in energy transitions, poor local governance in disaster management, and the failure of oil-wealthy nations like Nigeria and Angola to achieve sustainable development due to corruption.

The report argues that current climate finance is largely inaccessible and unsuitable for loss and damage, recommending a shift toward grant-based, community-led funding models based on historical responsibility and the 'polluter pays' principle.

The report argues that current climate finance is inadequate for loss and damage due to accessibility barriers, a reliance on loans, and a lack of focus on slow-onset and non-economic losses. It proposes six guiding principles—historical responsibility, equitable support, grant-based finance, accessibility, recipient ownership, and transparency—to inform a new UNFCCC-hosted facility. The authors recommend a phased approach, prioritizing small grants and unconditional cash transfers to empower vulnerable communities.