Search Climate Insights Directory

The author contends that the rise of far-right parties, such as Germany's AfD, is partly a reaction to climate policies that lack social equity. To combat this, the text advocates for a 'post-growth' framework and the implementation of community-led energy solutions that prioritize human well-being over profit. It calls for developed nations to accelerate emission cuts and for the EU to shift fossil fuel subsidies toward carbon-free heating to ensure a just transition.

The memorandum argues that while South African law does not yet have a specific statute requiring directors to prepare for climate change, existing fiduciary duties, the duty of care and diligence, and emerging legislation like the Climate Change Act 22 of 2024 create a legal basis for accountability. It highlights that South African courts are increasingly relying on non-binding governance standards, such as the King IV Report, and international obligations to interpret directors' duties. The document outlines several avenues for liability, including derivative actions under section 165 of the Companies Act, piercing the corporate veil under section 20(9), and criminal liability under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA). It concludes that directors should proactively manage climate risk to avoid potential litigation as legal frameworks evolve.

The document argues that Oregon should adopt consumption-based emission targets to account for its full carbon footprint and avoid displacing emissions to other regions. It contrasts sector-based emissions (territorial) with consumption-based emissions (life cycle of goods and services) and notes that while Oregon's sector emissions have decreased, consumption emissions continue to rise. The paper provides case studies from cities like San Francisco, London, and Paris, and countries like Sweden, to illustrate different target-setting approaches. It proposes four specific frameworks for Oregon: aligning with existing sector goals, targeting minimum well-being standards, using global carbon budget scenario analysis, or applying a 'fair share' equity-based approach.

The document argues that Oregon cannot achieve climate-safe emission levels through individual behavioral changes or technological solutions alone. It highlights a significant 'emissions gap' where consumption-based emissions grew over 20% in 16 years, despite stabilizing in-state production emissions. The authors advocate for a shift from growth-centric neoclassical economics toward paradigms like the well-being economy, degrowth, and doughnut economics. Proposed structural interventions for Oregon include redesigning economic measurements beyond GDP, investing in the care economy, implementing carbon pricing, and adopting smart growth urban policies to ensure a just and equitable transition.

The Union of Concerned Scientists interviewed 19 legal experts to identify critical research gaps in climate litigation. The report categorizes these into three priority areas—attribution science, human health, and economic modeling—and five strategic areas, including greenwashing and emissions accounting. A central cross-cutting theme is the need for research on losses and damages. The authors emphasize that while IPCC reports provide a foundation, litigation requires more granular, geographically specific data and better communication between scientists and legal teams to overcome barriers such as differing timelines and data gaps in the Global South.

The UK has met previous emissions targets primarily through the energy supply sector, but currently lacks credible plans for two-thirds of the reductions needed to reach its 2030 target of a 68% reduction compared to 1990 levels. To address this, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) emphasizes that over 75% of future reductions must come from non-energy sectors, specifically transport, buildings, agriculture, and land. Key recommendations include accelerating the scale-up of methane-suppressing feed, deploying 5 MtCO2 of engineered greenhouse gas removals annually by 2030, and prioritizing low-carbon hydrogen for industrial use-cases like steel and ammonia production rather than home heating. In aviation, while a SAF mandate is planned for 2025 to reach a 10% target by 2030, the brief warns against overreliance on SAF due to feedstock constraints and suggests exploring e-fuels and hydrogen. Nuclear energy is identified as a long-term necessity, requiring a shift toward standardised products to reduce costs.

The document highlights the critical role of China's iron and steel sector in the global carbon budget, noting that current emission trajectories could exhaust the sector's projected budget in 5-12 years. It advocates for the development of industry-level targets derived from China's national goals of carbon peaking by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060, supported by technological feasibility assessments and synergistic mechanisms involving trading, financing, and carbon asset management.

The briefing argues that current oil and gas production trajectories are incompatible with the Paris Agreement, with projected production by 2050 potentially exceeding 1.5°C-aligned needs by 260% for oil and 210% for gas. It advocates for a coordinated global phase-out led by the G7 and G20, emphasizing that new extraction projects must cease immediately. The author highlights the necessity of climate finance, noting a gap between current annual climate finance (USD 1.3 trillion) and the required green transition investment for emerging and developing economies (USD 2.4 trillion). To ensure equity, the document suggests assessing transition capacity based on GDP per capita, government revenue shares from fossil fuels, and workforce employment in the sector, while calling for the phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies and the implementation of innovative funding, such as taxes on fossil fuel company revenues.

ClientEarth and Carbon Tracker Initiative argue that the PRMS 2018 framework is 'climate-blind' and fails to account for the energy transition, risking the accumulation of stranded assets. They propose introducing an 'atmospheric viability' test to determine if reserves are compatible with a 1.5°C warming limit and suggest comprehensive updates to 'defined conditions' and 'commerciality' criteria to include physical and transition climate risks.

The Climate Bonds Initiative introduces a tool for financial institutions to evaluate corporate transition maturity across five categories, ranging from 'No Action' to 'Net Zero Achieved'. The system uses specific indicators across commitment, emission targets, implementation strategies, governance, and performance to determine if a company's financing can be labeled as 'transition finance' or 'green finance'. It emphasizes the need for science-based benchmarks, trackable annual actions, and board-level governance, while providing a weighted scoring method for companies with multiple business activities.

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 report asserts that limiting global warming to 1.5°C requires a drastic reduction in oil and gas production, potentially between 58% and 99% by 2050. It highlights a significant 'production gap,' noting that current government plans for 2030 exceed 1.5°C-consistent levels by 29% for oil and 82% for gas. The document advocates for a 'just transition' that prioritizes phase-outs in developed and low-dependency economies while providing financial and technical support to the Global South. Key recommendations include ending new field development, reforming fossil fuel subsidies, and transforming national oil companies into clean energy entities.

ClientEarth asserts that a global plastics treaty will only be effective if it establishes legally binding production reduction targets, prohibits new plastic plants, and addresses the entire lifecycle of plastics from fossil fuel extraction to waste. The organization highlights that plastics production is projected to consume 20% of the world's carbon budget by 2050 and that only 9% of all plastic ever made has been recycled. The document emphasizes the need to align public and private financial flows with these goals and to prioritize human rights and health, noting that nearly a quarter of the 10,500 chemical substances in plastics are of potential concern for human health.

The methodology focuses on indicators with a 2030 horizon to align with the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C goal. It evaluates companies across five main dimensions: current energy production (using a fossil fuel equivalence method to compare renewables and fossil fuels), cash-flow allocation (analyzing CAPEX for exploration versus low-carbon solutions), fossil fuel strategy (assessing upstream expansion and production overshoot relative to the IEA Net Zero Emissions scenario), diversification strategy (projecting 2030 energy mixes), and emission targets (calculating carbon intensity excess and reliance on CCUS and offsets). The analysis covers 6 European companies (BP, Eni, Equinor, Repsol, Shell, TotalEnergies), 2 US companies (Chevron, ExxonMobil), and 4 National Oil Companies (ADNOC, Petrobras, QatarEnergy, Saudi Aramco).

The report finds that since the 2021 IEA Net Zero roadmap, at least 20.3 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe) of new oil and gas discoveries have been announced. In 2023 alone, 20 fields were approved for development, sanctioning 8 billion boe. The analysis highlights a significant disconnect between the industry's push for new reserves—particularly in South America and Africa—and climate goals, noting that current production pathways are significantly higher than 1.5 degree compatible scenarios. It specifically criticizes the use of scope one and two emissions claims to justify projects while ignoring scope three emissions.

A coalition of 50 civil society organisations is urging financial institutions to refuse funding for the Papua LNG project in Papua New Guinea. The group argues the project is incompatible with the 1.5°C warming limit, citing estimated emissions of 220 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent and risks of stranded assets due to projected peaks in global gas demand by 2030. The statement also highlights potential human rights violations, lack of transparent community consultation, and the existence of more affordable renewable energy alternatives for the country.

The brief provides scientific and legal arguments to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, asserting that the climate emergency constitutes a threat to fundamental human rights. It emphasizes that States have a positive obligation to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions based on the best available science, specifically the 1.5°C target. The document argues that this duty includes regulating 'Carbon Majors' and avoiding 'false solutions' like carbon offsetting and unproven geoengineering, which may undermine genuine decarbonization. It concludes that failure to take effective, science-based action violates the rights to life, health, and a healthy environment, particularly for marginalized groups and future generations.

The document argues that national oil companies (NOCs), which control half of global oil and gas production and two-thirds of hydrocarbon reserves, are likely to exceed their carbon budgets more than international oil companies. It highlights a disconnect between financial actors and NOC decarbonization, specifically noting that credit ratings are not currently linked to low-carbon transition plans. The brief aims to provide levers for financial actors to hold NOCs accountable for their production and investment strategies, particularly those internationally exposed NOCs dependent on external financing.

NDCs are bottom-up climate strategies submitted every five years to the UNFCCC, focusing on short-term emission reductions and adaptation. While they allow countries to tailor plans to their specific capacities, they lack legal binding and sufficient ambition; current pledges would result in 2.7°C of warming. The document emphasizes the 2020-2030 period as the 'decisive decade' and highlights the 2023 Global Stocktake at COP28 as a critical moment for increasing accountability and ambition before the 2025 NDC updates.

The document details the technical methodology used by the Union of Concerned Scientists to model US energy system transitions. It outlines targets for reducing energy and industrial CO2 emissions by 47.5% by 2030 and 100% by 2050, alongside specific targets for non-CO2 gases. The analysis employs seven scenarios, including reference cases and various net-zero pathways, incorporating the impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). Key assumptions include the total retirement of coal generation by 2030 in net-zero scenarios and 100% zero emissions vehicle sales by 2035.