Search Climate Insights Directory

The report critiques the AIIB's Climate-Focused Policy-Based Financing (CPBF) instrument, arguing that it contains significant loopholes regarding fossil fuel finance and lacks robust safeguards for human rights and gender equality. Based on an analysis of programmes in Brazil and Bangladesh, the authors find that while CPBF loans are counted as 100% climate finance, the funds are fungible and not tracked for specific climate outcomes. The document recommends banning all fossil fuel finance, strengthening the Project-affected Peoples’ Mechanism (PPM), and aligning Paris alignment methodologies strictly with the 1.5°C goal.

The document explains that biofuels are intended to reduce, rather than replace, fossil fuel use, particularly in hard-to-electrify sectors like aviation and shipping. It distinguishes between three generations of biofuels: first-generation (food-based), second-generation (waste-based), and third-generation (algae-based). While they can reduce emissions if produced sustainably, first-generation fuels can increase deforestation and biodiversity loss. The guide highlights regional production patterns in the Americas, noting Brazil's leadership in sugarcane ethanol and Colombia's role in palm oil biodiesel.

Over 30 environmental organizations have petitioned the U.S. Senate to oppose 'year-round E15' legislation, asserting that increasing the ethanol blend from 10 percent to 15 percent would raise food and fuel costs, increase greenhouse gas emissions through land-use changes, and cause environmental degradation.

The Clean Air Task Force asserts that the EU ETS review is critical for bridging the cost gap between conventional jet fuel and sustainable aviation fuels (SAF). While ReFuelEU Aviation established demand, the author notes that no large-scale e-SAF project in the EU had reached a final investment decision as of mid-2026. The document recommends extending the SAF allowance mechanism beyond 2030, mandating the reinvestment of ETS aviation revenues into sector decarbonisation, and carefully integrating high-quality carbon removals into the long-term strategy.

The research evaluates the feasibility and economic benefits of transitioning from food-crop biofuels to residue-based SAFs and e-fuels in the Midwestern United States. It finds that producing three billion gallons of SAF annually from corn stover could contribute between $9 billion and $32 billion to regional GDP and support up to 214,000 jobs, provided there is sufficient policy support.

The report argues that a just energy transition in Africa requires the concurrent development of non-fossil fuel revenue sources and employment to avoid destabilising public finances. Focusing on Angola, Senegal, and Tanzania, it identifies alternative sectors such as renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, mining of critical minerals, and tourism. It recommends the adoption of Just Transition Investment Plans (JTIPs), the implementation of 'sunset policies' to end new fossil fuel licensing, and the use of fossil revenues as a temporary financing mechanism for green industrialisation. The report specifically advocates for strict conditions on any remaining gas use, including a ban on export-oriented LNG and a requirement to ringfence 50% of revenues for renewable energy.

The roadmap advocates for a phased exit from fossil fuels in Latin America and the Caribbean, emphasizing a transition that integrates climate justice, economic diversification, and the recognition of nature's rights. It categorizes countries by their hydrocarbon profile—booming production, mature production, or importing with refining capacity—to tailor phase-out strategies. Key goals include achieving a net-zero electricity system by 2050, decarbonizing industrial and transport demand, and reforming financial systems to reduce debt-based climate finance. The document also calls for the criminalization of ecocide and the exclusion of climate policies from investor-state arbitration mechanisms.

Environmental organizations oppose the 'year-round E15' bill, claiming it would increase greenhouse gas emissions through land-use changes, harm wildlife and water resources, and increase costs for consumers while primarily benefiting land investors.

The report identifies the lack of formal land documentation as a primary barrier to agricultural productivity in Africa, preventing smallholder farmers from accessing the credit needed for technological advancements like irrigation and mechanisation. It highlights the risks of 'land grabbing', particularly in the Nile River Basin, and advocates for a policy shift that prioritises domestic food production and the cultivation of indigenous crops over cash crops for export to ensure national food security.

Indonesia's energy subsidies peaked at IDR 886.1 trillion in 2022 and remained high in 2024 at IDR 713.5 trillion, with fossil fuel support accounting for 88.9% of the total. The report highlights three dominant costs: electricity compensation for the state utility PLN, 3-kg LPG subsidies, and fuel compensation payments to Pertamina. These measures often benefit higher-income households and create a 'net negative carbon price' that offsets the national carbon pricing scheme. While electric vehicle (EV) incentives have surged since 2020, they remain negligible compared to fossil fuel support. The document recommends a phased reform plan to redirect spending toward renewable energy, targeted social protection, and induction cooking to reduce import dependency and emissions.

The document critiques the Indonesian government's strategy of nationalizing companies that violated environmental laws, arguing that state-led initiatives like the Food and Energy Estates are causing massive deforestation in Papua. It warns that these projects risk repeating the failures of the 1990s Mega Rice project and may deter foreign investment due to perceived legal instability and corruption. The author suggests that the government should instead leverage its power to force companies to fund ecosystem restoration and shift agricultural expansion to degraded lands rather than intact forests.

The report inventories 130 support measures across six energy types in Indonesia: oil and gas, coal, electricity, renewable energy, biofuels, and electric vehicles (EVs). It details various mechanisms including direct financial transfers, tax exemptions, and price regulations. For the period FY 2021 to FY 2024, 27% of these measures were quantified using official government data, while 64% remained unquantified due to data limitations. The annex provides specific legislative references and nominal values in IDR and USD for each measure.

The document analyzes Nigeria's transport sector, which is heavily dependent on fossil fuels and accounts for 24% of national GHG emissions. It evaluates current policies, emerging green initiatives like the P-CNGI and Lagos E-Mobility Project, and provides recommendations for integrating climate action into national transport planning, drawing on lessons from Ethiopia and Kenya.

The report details a shift in U.S. federal priorities that has narrowed incentives for clean energy, primarily through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) and executive agency actions. It highlights significant tax credit repeals or restrictions, DOE funding cancellations, and EPA reporting rollbacks that have created deep uncertainty across the electric power, manufacturing, and energy and industry sectors. While some investments accelerated to meet new deadlines, others—particularly in hydrogen, sustainable aviation fuel, and carbon management—have declined or relocated abroad.

The paper explores the bidirectional relationship between agriculture and industrial policy. It highlights how agriculture's long experience with subsidies and market distortions can inform current green industrial strategies, while detailing how the transition to a bioeconomy and green energy affects agricultural inputs and land use. The author emphasizes the need for 'sustainable productivity' metrics and warns of fiscal asymmetries between high-income and low-income countries during this transition.

The report analyzes the integration of methane abatement in sustainable finance taxonomies across five jurisdictions. It finds significant gaps in sectoral coverage, a tendency to prioritize usability over technical rigor, and a lack of specific, measurable criteria. To address these, the report provides a framework of best-practice measures for the energy, agriculture, waste, and wastewater sectors.

The report assesses the economic impact of India's power sector decarbonization on Jharkhand, projecting significant losses in state revenue, PSU earnings, and employment. It proposes a three-phase strategic framework (Enabling, Scaling-up, and Viksit Bharat) to transition the state from a raw-material supplier to a cleantech manufacturing hub. The analysis identifies four priority investment areas—clean power, green molecules, sustainable mobility, and green equipment manufacturing—estimating a total capital requirement of USD 41.4 billion to substitute lost fossil fuel revenues and create new employment opportunities.

The report finds that sustainable finance taxonomies generally suffer from incomplete sectoral coverage, a tendency to prioritize usability over technical rigor, and a lack of specific, measurable criteria for methane abatement. While the energy sector has the most extensive coverage, agriculture and waste sectors are inconsistently addressed. The authors propose a set of evidence-based best practices and technical screening criteria to improve the environmental integrity of green finance frameworks.

The annex outlines the framework for mapping public financial flows in India's energy sector from FY 2014 to FY 2024. It details new subsidies for electric vehicles, biofuels, and solar energy, while revising methodologies for coal and LPG support. The document also establishes a system for quantifying government receipts and the social and environmental costs of energy, including carbon pricing and health-related externalities.

The statement calls for COP30 in Belem to establish an action plan for a just transition to 100% renewable energy, specifically targeting the reform of multilateral development banks (MDBs). It argues that current MDB models prioritise private profit and increase debt in the Global South, citing examples of harmful green hydrogen and hydropower projects. The authors propose three shifts: an immediate end to fossil fuel and 'false solution' finance, the provision of grants instead of debt-creating instruments, and a move toward small-scale, community-owned renewable energy projects to ensure energy sovereignty.