Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that carbon offsetting is often used to justify continued emissions and delay the necessary phase-out of fossil fuels. It distinguishes between 'avoidance offsets', which are deemed incompatible with net zero goals, and 'removal offsets', which face significant challenges regarding permanence, additionality, and scale. The authors contend that the current carbon market reproduces global inequalities and risks negative social outcomes, particularly in land-based projects. They recommend that governments and businesses eliminate avoidance offsets, prioritize direct emission reductions, and fund necessary carbon removals through non-market mechanisms such as public financing or mandates.

The report argues that 'net zero' initiatives are being manipulated by 'Big Polluters' to create an illusion of climate action while continuing to expand fossil fuel portfolios. It specifically analyzes the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market, the UN's High-Level Expert Group (HLEG) on Net-Zero Emissions Commitments of Non-State Entities, and the Race to Zero campaign. The analysis highlights how leadership roles in these bodies are held by individuals and organizations with deep ties to the fossil fuel industry, such as executives from banks that provide billions in fossil fuel financing and lawyers representing oil majors. For instance, the report notes that member banks of the Race to Zero, Net-Zero Banking Alliance, and GFANZ invested over US$500 billion in fossil fuels in 2021, with 25% directed toward new expansion. The document concludes that these initiatives allow polluters to greenwash their business plans and avoid meaningful regulation.

The report analyzes the links between 'Big Polluters' and three major net-zero initiatives: the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market, the High-Level Expert Group (HLEG) on Net-Zero Commitments of Non-State Entities, and the Race to Zero. It argues that these initiatives are compromised by leaders and advisors with deep ties to the fossil fuel industry, allowing companies to 'greenwash' their business models while continuing to finance fossil fuel expansion. The document highlights specific instances where financial institutions and corporate executives within these bodies have a history of funding fossil fuels or opposing environmental justice, thereby questioning the credibility of the standards and guidelines these bodies produce.

The report analyzes the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM), the UN High-Level Expert Group (HLEG), and the 'Race to Zero' alliance, asserting that these bodies are compromised by ties to the fossil fuel industry. It details how board members and advisors have professional links to companies like ExxonMobil, Shell, and BP, or financial institutions that continue to fund fossil fuel expansion. The document argues that these connections allow polluters to use 'net zero' frameworks as a tool for greenwashing and to avoid regulations that would require actual emission reductions at the source.

The report examines how the mining industry must balance the surge in demand for critical minerals needed for low-carbon technologies with the necessity of reducing its own greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate-driven risks like water scarcity and tailings dam failures.

The 2022 SEforALL Forum, held in Kigali, Rwanda, mobilized USD 347 million in new financial commitments to support clean energy transitions and energy access in developing countries. Key outcomes included the Kigali Communique, which outlines seven transformative actions for a just energy transition in Africa, and the launch of several new partnerships and initiatives targeting renewable energy, energy efficiency, and clean cooking. The event emphasized the integration of youth in energy leadership and provided a platform for ministerial roundtables and B2B investment matchmaking.

The document highlights the critical role of infrastructure as a primary driver of both biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions, noting that 79% of global emissions are attributed to the sector. It argues that because 75% of the infrastructure expected to exist by 2050 has not yet been built, there is a time-sensitive opportunity to align new development with nature-positive and net-zero outcomes. The brief specifically advocates for the inclusion of infrastructure in the goals and targets of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), proposing specific language changes to prioritize the mitigation hierarchy and the restoration of the 70% of the planet not covered by the 30% conservation target. It further recommends that countries adopt full-cost accounting for environmental externalities and increase investment in nature-based infrastructure through flexible financing mechanisms.

The Declaration on a Green COVID-19 Recovery argues that current recovery policies are failing by supporting fossil fuels and entrenching inequality. It calls for a mass movement of informed citizens to hold power to account and demands specific transformative measures, including a dedicated green recovery finance package for the global south, the end of fossil fuel subsidies, and the implementation of inclusive governance through citizen assemblies.

ClientEarth criticizes the Society of Lloyd’s ESG Guidance for being non-binding and lacking transparency, short-term targets, and a fossil fuel phase-out plan. The letter asserts that the Guidance represents a retreat from previous commitments and risks legal breaches regarding climate risk management and public disclosure.

ClientEarth has issued a formal letter to Deloitte alleging that the firm is failing to demonstrate how it incorporates material climate risks into its audits of listed companies. The document asserts that existing standards from the IASB, IAASB, and FASB already require the consideration of climate-related matters. Referencing a report by Carbon Tracker and the Carbon Accounting Project, ClientEarth claims that Deloitte and other auditors are habitually failing to provide evidence of climate risk assessment, creating an information gap for investors and risking legal liability in jurisdictions such as the UK and US. The letter calls on Deloitte to review its audit practices, ensure consistency between financial statements and narrative climate commitments, and adopt Paris-aligned accounting assumptions.

ClientEarth asserts that KPMG and other auditors are failing to incorporate material climate-related financial risks into company audits, despite clear guidance from standard-setters like the IFRS Foundation and IAASB. Referencing a Carbon Tracker report, the letter highlights a systemic lack of transparency regarding climate-sensitive assumptions and a failure to align accounts with the Paris Agreement. ClientEarth warns that this creates a material information gap for investors and exposes KPMG to regulatory sanctions and legal liability in the UK and US.

ClientEarth asserts that EY and other auditors are failing to incorporate material climate-related financial risks into company audits, despite clear guidance from standard-setters like the IFRS Foundation and IAASB. Referencing a Carbon Tracker report, the letter highlights a systemic lack of transparency regarding climate-sensitive assumptions in financial statements. ClientEarth warns EY of potential legal and regulatory liabilities in the UK and US and calls for a comprehensive review of its audit practices for carbon-intensive firms.

ClientEarth has issued a formal letter to PwC alleging systemic failures in the audit of climate-related financial risks. The document asserts that existing IFRS, US GAAP, and IAASB standards already require the consideration of material climate risks, yet a report by Carbon Tracker indicates that PwC and other auditors frequently fail to demonstrate this scrutiny. ClientEarth warns that such failures create an information gap for investors and expose PwC to regulatory sanctions, shareholder claims, and potential criminal liability. The letter calls for a comprehensive review of PwC's audit practices for carbon-intensive companies and a commitment to using Paris-aligned accounting assumptions.

The statement critiques 'Nature-based Solutions' (NbS) as a deceptive framework used by governments and corporations to justify 'net zero' targets without implementing deep emission reductions. It asserts that NbS rely on flawed assumptions about carbon sequestration and risk triggering massive land grabs in the Global South, citing the example of ENI in Mozambique. The author calls for structural changes, immediate emission cuts by developed nations, and the protection of Indigenous rights over market-based environmental schemes.

The document outlines key lessons for SADC member states to improve their NDCs, emphasizing the need for inclusive stakeholder engagement, alignment with long-term development goals, and the use of quantifiable targets and evidence-based analysis. It highlights examples from South Africa, Rwanda, and Costa Rica to demonstrate how detailed implementation roadmaps and participatory scenario planning can enhance climate commitments.

The document analyzes the NEW 4.0 project in Northern Germany, which demonstrated that large-scale industrial economies can technically operate on 100% renewable energy through digital load management, sector coupling, and innovative storage. It argues that while the technology for a net-zero grid exists, the primary barriers in both Germany and Canada are outdated regulatory, legal, and financial frameworks that discourage innovation and flexibility.

The report analyzes the IEA's Net Zero Emissions by 2050 (NZE) scenario, highlighting its call for an immediate end to new fossil fuel supply projects and a 75% reduction in methane emissions by 2030. While acknowledging the NZE as a benchmark for 1.5C alignment, the author criticizes its heavy reliance on carbon capture and storage (CCS), carbon dioxide removal (CDR), and biomass, which the report argues could prolong fossil fuel use and cause land-use conflicts. It further notes that the IEA underestimates the cost-competitiveness of renewables and the risks associated with nuclear energy. The document recommends that financial institutions immediately cease support for new fossil fuel and LNG projects and that the IEA adopt a more precautionary approach to unproven technologies.

The paper evaluates four scenarios—a Reference Scenario and three increasing levels of policy ambition—to determine the effectiveness of tax credits, infrastructure spending, and performance standards in decarbonizing the U.S. economy. It finds that while tax credits and spending drive early adoption, sector-specific performance standards and negative emissions technologies are essential to reach net-zero by 2050. The analysis concludes that decarbonization is economically feasible, with potential net savings of 0.3 percent of U.S. GDP by 2050 under reference oil prices.

Reclaim Finance asserts that TotalEnergies' corporate strategy is incompatible with climate science, specifically citing plans to increase gas production by over 30% by 2030 and expand operations in the Arctic and East Africa. The document highlights that between 2016 and 2020, over 30 commercial banks provided $40.6 billion to the company, with major contributors including Barclays, JPMorgan Chase, and several French banks. It calls for financial institutions to end support for fossil fuel developers and adopt a 'no new oil and gas' principle, citing La Banque Postale as a precedent for ending support for companies developing new oil and gas projects.

The Canadian Climate Institute asserts that Canada requires a whole-of-government approach to climate change to ensure that all departments work collaboratively rather than in silos. While some structures exist, such as a climate secretariat in the Privy Council Office, the author recommends establishing a dedicated cabinet committee for climate change, expanding the Privy Council Office's secretariat, and implementing a 'climate lens' for all government decision-making. Success depends on sustained executive leadership from the Prime Minister, buy-in across the public service, adequate resources, and external accountability through advisory bodies.