Search Climate Insights Directory

The briefing evaluates the draft second NDC from the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) and the recommendations from the Presidential Climate Commission (PCC), arguing that the DFFE's targets lack sufficient ambition and scientific justification compared to the PCC's evidence-based approach.

The document highlights the critical nature of the INC-5.2 negotiations in Geneva, emphasizing the need for a treaty that includes plastic production caps, addresses toxic chemicals, and establishes robust financial mechanisms. It warns against the influence of fossil fuel lobbyists, the risks of consensus-based decision-making that could lead to gridlock, and the danger of postponing key decisions to future Conferences of the Parties (COPs).

The document warns that reforming the MSR2 before the ETS2 launches in 2027 could lead to an oversupply of allowances, weakening the price signal and jeopardizing the EU's 2030 climate target of a 42% reduction in covered emissions. It argues that high prices should be managed through 'complementary measures'—such as CO2 standards for vehicles and boiler phase-outs—and the strategic use of the Social Climate Fund and €300 billion in ETS2 revenue. The authors contend that existing safeguards, including a 'soft price cap' of approximately €55 per tonne and the early auctioning of 30% more allowances, are sufficient for the initial phase. They caution that any increase in allowance supply must be 'cap neutral' to avoid exceeding the carbon budget.

Ember's submission to the Independent Review of Greenhouse Gas Removals warns against overreliance on Power BECCS, citing significant delays at the Drax power station, technological uncertainty, and high costs to consumers. The document highlights that Drax's BECCS project has been delayed to the early 2030s despite substantial public subsidies and that the technology's carbon neutrality is scientifically contested. Ember notes a 60.1% decrease in estimated residual emissions to be balanced by engineered removals between the 6th and 7th Carbon Budgets. It further argues that Power BECCS creates a dangerous dependence on imported biomass, with over 99% of Drax's 2024 wood pellets being imported, primarily from North America. The report recommends winding down Drax subsidies after 2031 and prioritising decarbonisation of easier-to-abate sectors like power, buildings, and transport.

The briefing warns that 63 oil and gas fields in development could emit 2,300 kilotonnes of methane annually by 2030, a volume comparable to current fossil fuel production emissions in Europe. It highlights a critical gap where high-emitting projects in countries exporting to the EU will reach peak capacity before EU methane regulations take full effect in 2027 and 2030. The report notes significant data transparency failures among top operators and argues that continued investment in new infrastructure undermines the Global Methane Pledge and overall climate mitigation efforts.

The report details Glencore's expansion of coal capacity and the role of European banks in financing these activities through bond issuances, highlighting loopholes in bank coal policies.

The report argues that while phasing out oil and gas is essential to meet the 1.5C Paris Agreement goals, the threat of investor-state arbitration often creates a 'regulatory chill' that discourages ambitious climate action. It identifies that legal risks increase as a project progresses through its life cycle, with the highest risks associated with targeting the production phase. To mitigate these risks, the authors propose five principles: stopping the issuance of new licenses, managing investor expectations through long-term frameworks and early notice, grounding policies in legislation and scientific evidence, leveraging existing environmental regulations, and ensuring consistent application across all investors. The report specifically suggests that governments should prioritize a managed phase-out with clear end dates and consider an internationally legally binding instrument to harmonize production deadlines and exclude arbitration rights for fossil fuel investors.

The report argues that Australia is a 'fossil fuel behemoth' whose exported emissions are projected to be 3.3 times larger than its domestic emissions within five years. It highlights that despite IEA warnings against new developments, Australia has approved 30 new coal and gas projects since 2021. The document asserts that a conservative selection of planned projects could consume 6.2% of the remaining global 1.5°C carbon budget. It further criticizes the Australian Safeguard Mechanism as insufficient because it does not manage exported emissions or prevent new project approvals. Finally, it contrasts Australia's fossil fuel expansion with its public commitments to Pacific nations and its bid to co-host COP31.

The IISD response to the DESNZ consultation argues for more rigorous standards in assessing Scope 3 emissions for offshore oil projects, specifically calling for the separate reporting of Category 11 emissions, the use of zero-emission baselines, and the assessment of significance based on 1.5°C science-based scenarios rather than as a proportion of global emissions.

Natural Justice assesses South Africa's 2025 draft NDC, acknowledging progress in absolute emissions targets but warning that these are undermined by over-reliance on international conditionality and a lack of concrete implementation plans. The submission argues that the draft fails to meet the 'highest possible ambition' standard set by the ICJ, citing gaps in adaptation financing, the exclusion of natural disturbance emissions from accounting, and the absence of a clear fossil fuel phase-out schedule. It recommends integrating a Human Rights-Based Approach (HRBA), establishing a grant-based Loss and Damage facility funded partly by a tax on fossil fuel profits, and mandating Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) for all climate projects.

The compendium details the legal arguments presented from December 2 to December 13, 2024, at the ICJ. It highlights a fundamental divide between climate-vulnerable nations and several high-emitting States. Vulnerable nations, including many Small Island Developing States (SIDS), argue for a 'harmonious interpretation' of international law, asserting that obligations to prevent transboundary harm and protect human rights exist independently of and complement the Paris Agreement. They demand accountability for historical emissions and full reparations, including debt cancellation. Conversely, a minority of high-emitting States, such as the United States, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, argue that the UN climate treaty regime (UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreement) is the exclusive source of State obligations, seeking to limit liability and reject the applicability of customary international law or human rights law to climate mitigation.

The report, produced by the CO2ol Down project, argues that the current EU Climate Law fails to differentiate between temporary biogenic sequestration and permanent carbon removals. It proposes specific legislative amendments to ensure that permanent removals are used only to compensate for residual emissions and that biogenic sequestration is managed for ecosystem resilience rather than as a primary tool for climate neutrality. The proposal suggests establishing separate targets and trajectories for emissions reductions, biogenic sequestration, and permanent removals to avoid mitigation deterrence.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) asserts that a successful global plastics treaty must address the crisis at its source by capping production, as 99 percent of plastics are fossil-fuel derived and production is projected to triple by 2050. CIEL recommends a minimum 70 percent reduction in plastic production by 2050 relative to 2019 levels to align with 1.5°C climate goals. The document warns that current draft texts and the proposed "non-paper" by Chair Luis Vayas may lead to a weak agreement. Essential elements for an effective treaty include binding national targets, bans on hazardous chemicals (of which over 4,200 are known to pose risks), enforceable trade measures, and a financial mechanism such as a fee on primary polymer production. The authors highlight risks from industry lobbying and potential shifts in US policy following the re-election of Donald Trump.

The report highlights that G20 fossil fuel reserves contain over a trillion tons of CO2 equivalent, which would exceed the 2ºC carbon budget if fully extracted. It notes that emissions from G20 fossil fuel extraction nearly doubled between the 1992 Rio Summit and 2020. Despite this, the document argues that G20 economies have become less dependent on fossil fuel rents over the last three decades, making them better equipped to transition. It specifically identifies the USA, Canada, Australia, the UK, Germany, and Italy as being best placed to transition first and fastest.

The guide argues that US states are uniquely positioned to scale the carbon dioxide removal (CDR) industry by leveraging their specific geographies and regulatory authority. It outlines a framework for state leadership based on four core pillars: adopting approach-neutral and performance-based definitions of CDR, setting explicit removal targets aligned with carbon budgets, creating clear regulatory and permitting environments, and ensuring community-supported deployment through transparency and equity. The document emphasizes that CDR should complement, not replace, aggressive emissions reductions to avoid moral hazard.

The Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region is planning an estimated US$123.6 billion in new LNG infrastructure, primarily concentrated in Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil. Mexico has the world's third-largest planned LNG export buildout at 73.6 mtpa, largely intended to export U.S. gas from the Permian Basin. Argentina is proposing the 30 mtpa Argentina GNL Terminal to export gas from the Vaca Muerta shale basin, a project described as a "carbon bomb." Brazil is pursuing the world's fourth-largest LNG import expansion at 36.5 mtpa to reduce reliance on Bolivian gas and mitigate hydropower instability during droughts. These developments risk creating stranded assets and locking the region into gas dependence, contradicting IEA recommendations that the LNG trade peak this decade to limit warming to 1.5“. The report argues that the region's abundant renewable resources offer a more sustainable alternative to fossil fuel volatility.

The document analyzes how 'plastic recycling claims'—including circular loop symbols and statements like '100% recyclable'—misrepresent the limited efficacy of plastic recycling. It highlights that 91% of global plastic waste was not recycled in 2019 and that soft plastics are particularly difficult to recycle, often ending up as fuel or incinerated. The briefing concludes that such claims deceive the 'average consumer' and undermine the waste hierarchy, urging regulators like the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to require evidence based on 'real world conditions' to substantiate these claims.

ClientEarth's response to CP24/12 advocates for mandatory climate disclosures aligned with TCFD and ISSB standards, specifically calling for an 'atmospheric viability test' for mineral companies to prevent stranded asset risk. The organization argues against voluntary sustainability-labelled debt disclosures, urging for contractually binding commitments to prevent greenwashing, and cautions against reducing issuer liability for forward-looking climate statements.

The report finds that Australia, Canada, and the UK (the "Big Three") have historically and currently dominated fossil fuel extraction emissions within the Commonwealth. While these wealthy nations have the highest emissions, they are the least economically dependent on fossil fuel rents. In contrast, lower- and middle-income countries like Nigeria and Papua New Guinea are more exposed to financial risks from carbon liabilities. The report concludes that Commonwealth production plans are inconsistent with the 1.5°C goal, with the Big Three's share of the gap between Business as Usual and Net Zero scenarios exceeding 50%.

The briefing examines the expansion of LNG infrastructure in Latin America and the Caribbean, highlighting significant planned investments in Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil. It argues that these projects risk becoming stranded assets and conflict with global climate goals to limit warming to 1.5°C, suggesting that the region should instead prioritize its abundant renewable energy resources.