Search Climate Insights Directory

The report examines the financial and environmental impact of the UK's carbon tax exemption for biomass power plants, specifically focusing on Drax, Lynemouth, and MGT Teesside. It argues that biomass is not inherently carbon neutral and that the current tax break diverts funds from other low-carbon renewables. The author estimates that the government could forgo up to £6.4 billion in carbon taxes by 2027 based on high-end emission scenarios. The report recommends removing the tax break, tightening sustainability criteria, and requiring full life cycle assessments for Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) projects.

Between January 2017 and June 2020, Japanese public and private institutions provided at least US$23.4 billion in financing for LNG infrastructure across 10 countries. The report argues that the original rationales for this policy—energy security, climate friendliness, and economic viability—are now flawed due to the vulnerability of supply chains exposed by COVID-19, the high global warming potential of methane leakages, and the declining costs of renewable energy. It highlights that major Japanese banks (MUFG, Mizuho, and SMBC) provided the bulk of this funding, while five major trading companies saw a combined year-on-year profit drop of US$625 million in LNG-related businesses by March 2020. The document concludes that continuing to fund LNG infrastructure risks creating stranded assets and contradicts the UN's Principles for Responsible Banking.

The document argues that Canada's post-pandemic reconstruction offers a historic opportunity to pivot toward a low-carbon economy. It outlines seven specific principles, or 'green strings,' to guide bailouts, stimulus, and recovery measures. These include requiring companies to develop net-zero plans, prohibiting stock buybacks and dividends for aid recipients, and ensuring a just transition for workers in high-carbon sectors. The report emphasizes that green stimulus can create as many jobs as neutral measures and calls for increased transparency, equity for Indigenous peoples, and the protection of environmental regulations during the recovery phase.

The document argues that Canada's economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic presents a unique opportunity to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy. It proposes seven 'green conditions' to guide government spending, including requiring companies to have net-zero plans, banning stock buybacks for aid recipients, and ensuring a just transition for workers. The report emphasizes that without deliberate conditions, recovery funds risk perpetuating unsustainable economic structures.

The report examines the global cotton market, highlighting a shift toward voluntary sustainability standards (VSSs) which grew from 1% of production in 2009 to 14.1% in 2016. It identifies significant sustainability challenges, including high water and pesticide use, price volatility, and labor abuses. The document argues that VSSs like BCI, CmiA, Organic, and Fairtrade are essential for mitigating these risks and improving livelihoods for the 100 million farmers globally. It specifically identifies Mali and Burkina Faso as having high potential for VSS growth among Low Human Development Countries.

The report outlines the design and operationalization of a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system for Grenada's National Adaptation Plan (NAP). It identifies gaps in current data management—such as reliance on anecdotal knowledge and fragmented storage—and proposes a system to track goal achievement, implementation of Programmes of Action, and vulnerability reduction. The document recommends appointing a NAP M&E Coordinator and consolidating NAP indicators with the National Climate Change Policy (NCCP) outcomes to ensure a coherent approach to climate resilience.

The National Adaptation Plan (NAP) process is a strategic framework established in 2010 under the Cancun Adaptation Framework to help developing countries identify and address medium- and long-term climate adaptation priorities. It moves beyond ad hoc projects to embed adaptation into national development planning, budgeting, and decision-making. The process consists of three broad phases—planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E)—supported by enabling factors such as financing and capacity development. It is distinct from National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs), which focused on urgent short-term needs, and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), though it can operationalize the adaptation commitments within NDCs. The document emphasizes that a NAP is both a process and a document, and that effective processes must be country-driven, gender-responsive, and inclusive of the private sector and sub-national actors.

The document defines the NAP process as a strategic approach for countries to identify and respond to medium- and long-term climate adaptation priorities. It outlines the transition from short-term project-based interventions to systemic integration of adaptation into national development planning and budgeting. The process consists of a continuous cycle of planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E), supported by technical guidelines from the Least Developed Countries Expert Group (LDCEG). The text emphasizes that a NAP is both a document and a process, highlighting the importance of vertical integration between national and subnational levels, gender responsiveness, and private sector engagement. It further clarifies the synergy between NAPs, Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), the Paris Agreement, and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.

The report details how private equity firms like Blackstone, KKR, and Macquarie Infrastructure have acquired coal assets in the US, India, the Philippines, and Europe, often facing financial losses or environmental criticism. It contrasts these investments with a broader trend of coal decline, noting that US coal consumption dropped 44% since 2010 and renewable energy is expected to eclipse coal in the US by 2021.

The report argues that coal is no longer the cheapest power source and that a significant portion of the global coal fleet is now uncompetitive compared to new renewables with storage. It proposes a three-part approach—refinancing, reinvesting in clean energy, and providing transition financing—to overcome the barrier of legacy contracts and noncompetitive tariffs. The authors suggest that by 2025, 78% of the global coal fleet will be uncompetitive, creating an opportunity for net financial savings of over $107 billion. The report details specific financial instruments, such as ratepayer-backed securitization and carbon bonuses, and provides regional analyses for the US, EU, China, and India.

The document establishes a framework for evaluating 'high-quality' carbon credits across six quality objectives: robust GHG impact determination, avoidance of double counting, addressing non-permanence, facilitating the transition to net zero, strong institutional arrangements, and positive environmental and social impacts. It details specific criteria for each, such as additionality, corresponding adjustments under the Paris Agreement, and the avoidance of carbon lock-in, to guide buyers in a complex market.

The document outlines a framework for policy makers to create long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategies (LTS) as requested by Article 4 of the Paris Agreement. It proposes that an LTS should be an ongoing visioning exercise integrated into continuous planning and harmonized with Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). The guide suggests three levels of comprehensiveness for LTS development—ranging from base to detailed—to accommodate different country starting points, and identifies eight key aspects for policy makers to address based on their specific national situations.

The Unfriend Coal/Insure Our Future campaign calls on the insurance industry to leverage the economic disruptions of COVID-19 to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels. The authors argue that while progress has been made in restricting coal insurance, insurers must now expand these restrictions to oil and gas to meet Paris Agreement targets. The letter outlines five specific demands, including an immediate end to insuring new coal, oil, and gas projects and the divestment of assets from companies not aligned with a 1.5ºC pathway.

The Big Shift Coalition calls on the World Bank Group to utilize development policy loans (DPLs) to accelerate the transition to renewable energy and decarbonization, particularly during COVID-19 recovery. The coalition expresses concern that DPLs continue to facilitate fossil fuel investments, citing a review showing that 52 of 121 DPLs from FY 2014-18 targeted oil, gas, or coal mining. They recommend a new operational policy prohibiting the financing of fossil fuel development and the inclusion of coal, oil, and natural gas in 'Excluded Expenditures' legal agreements. Finally, the coalition requests public consultation and transparency regarding the World Bank's ongoing review of its policy lending instrument.

The NGO Forum on ADB calls for the Asian Development Bank to align its energy policy with the 1.5°C goal, divest from coal, and provide unconditional debt relief to developing member countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. The letter also demands the 'No Dilution' of the 2009 Safeguards Policy Statement and the introduction of binding labor and social protections.

Reclaim Finance calls on Total shareholders to support a climate resolution, arguing that the company's recent climate ambitions are insufficient and serve as a 'smoke screen' to maintain fossil fuel expansion.

The report by Reclaim Finance and Les Amis de la Terre France analyzes the climate pledges of several French financial institutions. While some banks like Natixis and SCOR have introduced coal exit timelines and exclusions, the authors argue that many commitments remain insufficient due to narrow scopes, the exclusion of major oil and gas companies, and a lack of alignment across all business lines, particularly in the case of Société Générale and SCOR's reinsurance activities.

The report analyzes the coal and shale oil and gas policies announced in May 2020 by BNP Paribas, Natixis, Rothschild & Co, Société Générale, and Crédit Agricole. It concludes that while some institutions like Natixis have made progress toward coal phase-out, many commitments remain insufficient due to narrow scopes, the exclusion of oil and gas majors, or a lack of firm disinvestment strategies. Notably, Société Générale is criticized for postponing action and continuing to support shale gas development.

The paper argues that recovery investments from the COVID-19 crisis should be strategically aligned to build a more resilient, low-carbon economy. It outlines four guiding principles: prioritizing job creation and economic growth, supporting public health and air pollution reduction, enhancing economic and climate resilience, and prioritizing decarbonization to meet Paris Agreement temperature goals.

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.