Search Climate Insights Directory

The report evaluates mechanisms to ensure that international carbon market credits under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement result in a net reduction of global emissions. It identifies 'automatic cancellation' and 'discounting' as the only options that meet the necessary criteria for overall mitigation, recommending 'automatic cancellation' due to its ease of implementation and precedent in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Analysis of 18 scenarios suggests that while costs for credit buyers may increase, the overall mitigation principle provides various benefits for transferring countries across a broad range of rates.

The report finds that ten companies were responsible for an estimated two-thirds of the health damage caused by EU coal power plants in 2016, including 7,600 premature deaths. RWE is identified as the most harmful company, with health costs of €5.4 billion in 2016. The analysis highlights that for many companies, the health costs imposed on society are similar in magnitude to the revenues they earn from selling coal-fired electricity. The report argues that companies are 'clinging to coal' through lack of retirement plans, continued investment in old plants, and lobbying for subsidies, and recommends a full phase-out of coal by 2030.

The document outlines requirements for the post-2020 biodiversity goals following the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. It advocates for the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women, and youth in the decision-making process. The authors argue that unlimited economic growth is incompatible with environmental preservation and call for the removal of corporate control over public policy and financial instruments. Furthermore, the statement rejects the use of biodiversity offsets and single biodiversity metrics, suggesting that goals must include qualitative aspects and divestment from destructive projects.

The document calls for a post-2020 biodiversity framework that prioritizes planetary boundaries over economic growth and incorporates the leadership of indigenous peoples and local communities. It explicitly rejects the 'voluntary commitments' model used in the Paris Agreement and argues against biodiversity offsets, claiming they are ineffective due to the complexity of ecosystems.

The Life After Coal Campaign urges the South African Minister of Finance to withhold guarantees for the Thabametsi and Khanyisa coal-fired power stations. The campaign argues these projects fail 'value for money' tests, violate the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), and would cause irreversible harm to the climate and public health. They highlight that the projects are not part of a least-cost electricity plan and would increase greenhouse gas emissions by 205.7Mt CO2eq over 30 years, potentially exposing the National Treasury to liabilities between R25.2 billion and R225.2 billion.

The text advocates for the EU to integrate climate change into its security and foreign policy framework, proposing a 'geographical/geopolitical' approach to climate security. It suggests that climate change acts as a risk multiplier for conflict, migration, and instability, particularly in regions like the Sahel. The author proposes several Green Party initiatives, including the creation of an EU Special Envoy for Climate Security, the reservation of international funds for climate mitigation in destabilized countries, and reducing dependence on fossil fuels from autocratic regimes to enhance global stability.

The report finds that G20 countries are not on track to meet Paris Agreement goals, with energy-related CO2 emissions increasing again in 2017 and 82% of energy supply still coming from fossil fuels. It highlights significant gaps in sectoral actions—particularly in power, transport, and industry—and notes that fossil fuel subsidies in the G20 nearly doubled between 2007 and 2016. While some countries are implementing 'just transition' initiatives for workers, others lack dialogue or action.

The paper examines the risk of "hot air" in international carbon markets under the Paris Agreement, where countries with targets higher than their projected emissions could transfer excess credits, potentially increasing global emissions. It proposes a typology of limits to prevent these transfers, testing them across 15 countries, and concludes that while such limits can prevent most hot air transfers, they involve policy trade-offs. The author recommends a cautious, portfolio-based approach to ensure environmental integrity.

The author calls on governments to ratify the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol to address the cooling sector's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. With cooling-related CO2 emissions projected to rise from 8% to 15% by 2050, the document emphasizes the need for low Global Warming Potential (GWP) refrigerants and energy-efficient equipment to avoid a vicious cycle of increasing cooling demand and global warming.

The document explores how green bonds can support Brazil's agricultural sector, noting that while the forestry sector has successfully used these instruments, sustainable agriculture remains underfunded. It highlights the underutilization of government programs like the ABC Program and suggests that securitizing small loans via Certificados de Recebíveis do Agronegócio (CRA) and leveraging bank-issued green bonds could bridge the financing gap for sustainable practices.

The report argues that Brazil can align its economic growth with climate commitments by increasing agricultural productivity on degraded lands, diversifying its energy matrix with renewables, and improving transport infrastructure. It concludes that the financial returns of climate-friendly investments will outweigh the costs, with specific opportunities to double agricultural production without further deforestation and reduce total energy system costs through decarbonization.

The report updates global climate finance estimates for 2015 and 2016, finding an annual average of USD 463 billion. While private investment remains the dominant source, particularly in renewables and the growing electric vehicle sector, the report highlights significant data gaps in tracking adaptation and energy efficiency. It also discusses the challenges of operationalizing Article 2.1(c) of the Paris Agreement to ensure all financial flows are consistent with low-emission and climate-resilient development.

The document examines the scale of public money supporting fossil fuels in G20 countries and presents case studies of reforms to align these flows with the Paris Agreement and Sustainable Development Goals. It highlights the use of consumption and production subsidy removals, increased taxation, and the diversification of state-owned enterprise investments. The paper argues that shifting these resources can create fiscal space for social protection, health, and clean energy, while recommending that G20 nations adopt ambitious reform timelines and protect vulnerable groups during the transition.

The report examines how G20 countries can shift public funds away from fossil fuels through subsidy reform, increased taxation, and the redirection of state-owned enterprise investments. It highlights specific national examples, such as Indonesia's consumption subsidy reform and the EU's transition funds, while arguing that the current scale of public support for fossil fuels hinders decarbonization and sustainable development.

The report warns that room air conditioner (RAC) stock could grow from 1.2 billion to 4.5 billion units by 2050, potentially increasing global temperatures by 0.5°C by 2100. It argues that conventional efficiency improvements and the Kigali Amendment are insufficient to offset this growth. The authors propose a '5X solution'—technology with five times less climate impact than current standards—which could prevent 100 gigatons of CO2e emissions by 2050 and save US$1.4 trillion in power generation capital costs.

The report finds that Estonia is likely to meet its 2020 climate and energy commitments, though it faces significant challenges for 2030. While the 2020 renewable energy target for overall consumption was met as early as 2013, the transport sector's renewable energy share remained critically low at 0.4% in 2016. Greenhouse gas emissions are heavily dominated by the energy sector (approximately 70%), with high per capita emissions compared to the EU average. The report concludes that achieving 2030 targets will require additional measures across all sectors, particularly in reducing non-ETS emissions and increasing energy efficiency.

The document argues that while individual CVF countries have low emissions, their collective impact is significant, equivalent to the world's fifth largest emitter. It provides a 'menu of options' for updating NDCs across key sectors—energy, transport, forests, and agriculture—while emphasizing the need for enhanced international finance, technology transfer, and robust national legal frameworks to implement these ambitions.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) argues that the draft IRP 2018 is unlawful and irrational because it includes 6,732MW of new coal capacity despite its own findings that a least-cost plan would exclude coal. The CER highlights severe failures in the draft, including inflated electricity demand forecasts, outdated and high cost assumptions for renewables and battery storage, and a total lack of consideration for water and climate change externalities. The document specifically objects to the Thabametsi and Khanyisa coal projects, citing their high emissions and risks to water resources in the Waterberg and Highveld regions. Furthermore, the CER criticizes the Department of Energy for failing to conduct meaningful public consultations with impacted communities and for withholding the Plexos modelling data necessary for transparent stakeholder review.

The document emphasizes that National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) are essential tools for EU Member States to transition to net-zero emission societies and meet Paris Agreement commitments. It argues that for these plans to be successful, they must exceed minimum EU ambition levels and be developed through active, multi-stakeholder dialogue involving civil society, academia, and the general public. The author notes a significant lack of transparency and timeliness in the submission of draft plans, with only Sweden having published its draft by August 2018, warning that many other states may treat the process as a "check-the-box" exercise to meet the December 2018 deadline.

The Council on Strategic Risks examines the implications of the Trump administration's intention to withdraw from the 1987 INF Treaty. The authors argue that this move, alongside the potential withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the JCPOA, signals a profound shift in the global security environment. They advocate for new arms control strategies that focus on specific destabilizing weapon classes—particularly those with indistinguishable conventional variants—and emphasize the need for non-governmental expertise and consultation with international allies to maintain global stability.