Search Climate Insights Directory

The policy brief contends that carbon markets are a flawed mechanism that fails to provide real climate finance, instead allowing Global North polluters to avoid direct emission reductions while potentially harming Global South communities.

The document examines how ISDS allows foreign investors, particularly in the fossil fuel industry, to sue governments over climate regulations, leading to a 'chilling effect' where states delay or weaken policies to avoid costly awards. It argues that these protections act as a subsidy for GHG-intensive industries, contradicting Article 2.1(c) of the Paris Agreement. The brief concludes that fragmented procedural reforms are insufficient and advocates for a unified global approach, including the use of COP29 and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to coordinate ISDS withdrawals or carve-outs.

The report examines the impact of methane emissions from global coal mining, noting that methane is 82.5 times more powerful than carbon dioxide over 20 years. It highlights a systemic failure in reporting, where governments rely on 'bottom-up' estimates that can underestimate emissions by a factor of 30, while operators possess precise data for safety reasons but are rarely required to share it. Despite the Global Methane Pledge, only the EU and Canada have committed to specific actions for active coal mine methane reduction.

The brief advocates for the use of ecosystem-based approaches to create synergies between the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the three Rio Conventions (CBD, UNCCD, and UNFCCC) at the country level. It recommends mainstreaming these approaches into national and community planning to support sustainable development and poverty alleviation, noting that multi-goal-oriented strategies can lower programme costs and improve effectiveness.

The document argues that the climate crisis is a human rights crisis, creating a legal obligation for States and corporations to provide remedy and full reparation for loss and damage. It asserts that the right to remedy is already established under international law and does not require new norms, but rather the application of existing frameworks and the 'polluter pays principle' to hold fossil fuel industries accountable. The text criticizes the UNFCCC for failing to uphold the right to remedy through its reliance on voluntary approaches and calls for the restructuring of loss and damage mechanisms to align with human rights standards. Finally, it emphasizes that while the UNFCCC is insufficient, complementary legal strategies—including litigation in international, regional, and national courts—are essential for delivering climate justice.

The document argues against a framework convention for the future plastics treaty, asserting that such a structure would delay concrete action. Instead, it recommends a substantive or hybrid treaty containing binding obligations and technical annexes. By comparing the successes of the Montreal Protocol with the perceived failures of the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol, the author highlights that mandatory national targets and efficient amendment processes for annexes are critical for effectiveness. The briefing warns that voluntary provisions and a lack of voting mechanisms in the Conference of the Parties (COP) risk creating an ineffectual 'paper tiger' agreement.

The author asserts that the 'Yes to Yasuní' victory in Ecuador demonstrates the power of civil society to pressure governments to end fossil fuel extraction. The document links this local success to the broader goals of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, emphasizing the need for an international legal framework that replaces the 'extractivist economic matrix' with global cooperation and financial compensation from the Global North to support a just energy transition.

The report analyzes national MEL systems for climate adaptation in nine countries, noting progress since 2014 in integrating MEL into national adaptation plans (NAPs). While monitoring and reporting are common, evaluation and learning activities are less prominent. The study finds that the systematic integration of gender equality and social inclusion (GESI) is insufficient, though Kenya and Vietnam provide examples of specific GESI indicators. It also emphasizes the link between national systems and global UNFCCC processes, such as the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience.

The document argues that loss and damage (L&D) finance is a matter of climate justice and that the Global South must maintain a unified negotiating position to secure grants-based funding. It reviews the operationalization of the Loss and Damage Fund and the Santiago Network, while warning against the use of loans that increase external debt. The brief highlights the strategic role of Brazil's G20 presidency and COP30 in advancing a holistic development and environment agenda, and calls for the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance to include separate sub-goals for adaptation and L&D to prevent double counting.

The memorandum examines the ITLOS advisory opinion, which establishes that anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions constitute marine pollution under UNCLOS. It highlights the 'stringent' due diligence required of States to protect the marine environment, the role of the best available science (specifically IPCC reports), and the principle that the Paris Agreement does not supersede UNCLOS obligations. The document also discusses the necessity of environmental impact assessments that account for cumulative and socio-economic impacts, and cautions against marine geoengineering that might transform pollution types.

The memorandum examines the ITLOS advisory opinion, which establishes that anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions constitute marine pollution under UNCLOS. It highlights the 'stringent' due diligence required of States to protect the marine environment, the role of the best available science (IPCC), and the principle that the Paris Agreement does not supersede UNCLOS obligations. The document further discusses the necessity of environmental impact assessments that account for cumulative and socio-economic impacts, and cautions against the use of marine geoengineering if it transforms pollution types.

The document serves as a '101' guide for journalists to report on climate change, explaining the difference between weather and climate, the primary causes of global warming, and the impacts of extreme weather. It offers specific phrasing to help reporters connect current events to climate change and distinguishes between mitigation and adaptation strategies. Additionally, it provides professional guidance on avoiding greenwashing, handling climate deniers, and centering climate justice in reporting, while emphasizing that climate coverage is based on scientific consensus rather than activism.

The document serves as an introductory resource for journalists to understand the causes and impacts of climate change and how to report on them accurately. It defines key terms, explains the role of greenhouse gases and fossil fuels, and details the effects of warming on weather patterns. The guide offers specific phrasing to help reporters connect extreme weather events to human-caused climate change and distinguishes between mitigation and adaptation strategies. It also outlines international and national policy frameworks, such as the Paris Agreement and the US Inflation Reduction Act, while advising journalists on how to avoid pitfalls like greenwashing and the platforming of climate deniers.

The document evaluates civil society engagement during the 2020-2021 NDC revision process in Mozambique, South Africa, and Zambia. It identifies significant barriers to inclusivity, including the digital divide during COVID-19, technical complexity of climate policy, and inadequate government communication. To improve the 2025 revisions, the briefing recommends diversifying engagement methods (such as 'imbizo' gatherings), enhancing technical capacity for civil society organisations (CSOs), and fostering regional peer learning to protect the livelihoods of marginalised communities.

The Climate Negotiations Glossary defines the technical, political, and procedural terminology of the UNFCCC process. It covers the governing bodies of the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreement, as well as the roles of various negotiation blocks, observer constituencies, and financial mechanisms. The guide explains specific articles of the Paris Agreement (such as Article 6 on carbon markets and Article 9 on finance), the functions of constituted bodies like the Adaptation Committee, and the logistical details of COP meetings, including the 'blue zone' and 'green zone'.

The authors contend that youth are disproportionately affected by climate change and its associated security risks but remain excluded from formal policymaking. They propose three specific actions for U.S. leadership: including youth in the Paris Agreement negotiating team, utilizing youth engagement in public diplomacy and peacebuilding, and leveraging influence in international financial institutions like the World Bank to prioritize youth-led climate projects.

The document argues that States have a legal obligation under international climate change law and human rights law to implement effective, science-based measures to mitigate climate change, specifically through the phase-out of fossil fuels and the regulation of non-state actors. It asserts that failure to do so constitutes an internationally wrongful act, triggering responsibilities for cessation of harm and full reparation, including financial compensation for loss and damage.

The IAI Science Diplomacy Center (SDC) is a regional initiative designed to foster science-policy dialogue and collaboration in the Americas, particularly Latin America and the Caribbean. Between 2023 and April 2024, the SDC established three priority pillars: Capacity Building, a Knowledge Hub, and Emerging/Evolving/Innovation Issues. Key achievements include the launch of a Science Diplomacy Training Program for Policy Makers, the expansion of the Science, Technology, and Policy (STeP) Fellowship program, and the development of a specialized science diplomacy curriculum with the University of Sao Paulo. The SDC is also building a Knowledge Hub to map experts, bibliography, and events, while engaging in strategic partnerships with organizations such as AAAS, UNESCO, and DiploCientifica to secure funding and expand regional training.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) asserts that the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement do not exhaustively define State obligations regarding climate change. Instead, States are bound by concurrent duties under customary international law (such as the prevention of transboundary harm), human rights law, and the law of State responsibility. CIEL argues that the cumulative emission of greenhouse gases, primarily from fossil fuels, constitutes an internationally wrongful act. Consequently, responsible States—particularly industrialized nations—must cease their destructive conduct and provide full reparation for material and moral injuries. The submission emphasizes that these obligations extend to future generations, grounded in the principle of intergenerational equity and the precautionary principle, which mandates prioritizing proven emission reductions over speculative technologies.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) submits that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) should interpret State climate obligations through a harmonized lens of multiple legal frameworks. CIEL contends that while the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement are relevant, they do not displace other primary rules such as the duty to prevent transboundary harm, human rights law, the law of the sea, or the law of State responsibility. The document asserts that these obligations apply concurrently and that compliance with climate treaties alone does not discharge a State's broader duties under international law, particularly regarding human rights and the protection of the marine environment.