Search Climate Insights Directory

The UK has nearly completed its transition from coal, a process driven initially by market forces and later by a carbon tax, rather than a single planned strategy. While the 'dash for gas' in the 1990s and the 2013 carbon tax significantly reduced coal-fired power, the socio-economic recovery of mining communities remains incomplete. Despite regeneration efforts, former coalfields experience persistent 'economic inactivity' and high rates of incapacity benefit claims, indicating a long-term job shortfall that transcends the retirement of the original mining workforce.

The document details the methodology for the Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2017, defining climate finance as capital flows for low-carbon and climate-resilient development. It specifies the inclusion of mitigation, adaptation, and dual-benefit finance while excluding fossil fuel-based lower-carbon generation and private R&D. The accounting scope focuses on annual financial commitments, covering grants, loans, equity, and balance sheet financing, while excluding risk management instruments and secondary market transactions to avoid double counting. It further defines the classification of public and private finance, the data sources used (such as BNEF and OECD), and the sectoral breakdowns for mitigation and adaptation activities.

The document examines how urban ecosystems and green infrastructure provide critical environmental, social, and economic services that protect cities from climate shocks. It highlights projected temperature increases in Alberta and advocates for a resilience framework based on robustness, redundancy, and resourcefulness. The brief provides recommendations for municipal governments to integrate biodiversity into planning, use asset management for natural spaces, and engage citizens in environmental stewardship.

The document outlines four established ways to generate revenue from restored land: timber and fuelwood (wood), non-wood forest products (such as fruits and essential oils), improved agricultural productivity for crops and livestock, and nature-based tourism. It also notes the rapid development of new markets for ecosystem services, specifically carbon storage and water quality improvement.

The cement industry in 20 European countries generated €5 billion in windfall profits between 2008 and 2015 due to the EU ETS, which the document argues subsidises pollution and hinders decarbonisation. These profits were derived from surplus allowances (€2.7 billion), cost-pass through (€2.1 billion), and offsets (€0.1 billion), with the highest gains in Spain, Italy, and Germany. The brief identifies failures such as low carbon prices and benchmarks that incentivise high-carbon clinker production, noting that European production is less energy efficient than that of India. To drive decarbonisation, the author recommends ending free allocations, introducing 100% auctioning with benchmarked border levelling to prevent carbon leakage, and replacing clinker benchmarks with cement benchmarks.

The document examines the impacts of coal, oil, gas, and megadams across Africa, highlighting how these 'dirty energy' sources drive climate change and cause severe social and health crises. It details specific cases, such as South Africa's coal reliance, Uganda's oil expansion, and Mozambique's megadams, while warning against the 'extreme energy' frontier of fracking and tar sands. The briefing concludes that African governments must reject these outdated pathways in favor of decentralized, sustainable energy systems supported by climate finance from developed nations.

The document examines the impacts of 'dirty energy' (coal, oil, gas, nuclear, industrial biomass, mega-dams, and waste incineration) across Africa. It highlights how these technologies drive climate change, cause severe health and environmental damage, and often benefit elites and multinational corporations over local populations. The report provides case studies on coal in South Africa, oil in Nigeria and Uganda, mega-dams in Mozambique, and the risks of 'extreme energy' like fracking and bitumen extraction in the Maghreb and Nigeria. It concludes by calling for 'energy sovereignty' and a just transition to decentralized, renewable energy systems.

The document examines the impacts of 'polluting energy'—including fossil fuels, industrial biomass, and large dams—across Africa. It highlights how these systems often benefit elites and corporations while leaving local populations to face health crises, land grabbing, and climate vulnerability. Specific case studies focus on South Africa's coal dependency, oil extraction in Nigeria and Uganda, the influence of European energy policies in the Maghreb, and the social and environmental costs of large dams in Mozambique. The report concludes that African nations must avoid 'locking in' obsolete polluting technologies and instead pursue energy sovereignty through decentralized renewables.

Friends of the Earth International asserts that humanity has entered the 'Decade Zero', the final window to prevent dangerous climate change through drastic action. The document criticizes the neoliberal economic system and the power of transnational corporations, which it claims drive the climate crisis and promote 'false solutions' like carbon markets and REDD. It proposes a transition to 'energy sovereignty', agro-ecology, and community forest management, while demanding that wealthy industrialised nations pay their 'climate debt' to support developing countries.

The report evaluates the climate risk disclosure practices of several major fossil fuel companies, including Arch Coal, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, CONSOL Energy, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy, and Royal Dutch Shell. It scores companies across four categories: regulatory risks, physical risks, market/indirect risks, and corporate governance. While most companies provide detailed analysis of regulatory risks, the report finds widespread failures in disclosing the specific role of climate change in physical risks and a near-total absence of disclosure regarding corporate governance on climate issues.

The report evaluates the climate policy engagement of several major fossil fuel companies, including BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Arch Coal, CONSOL Energy, and Peabody Energy. It uses a scoring system to measure their support for federal carbon reduction policies, their responses to the EPA Clean Power Plan and Methane Rule, and their participation in climate-supportive business alliances. Findings range from 'Good' scores for companies like BP, which supports carbon pricing and the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, to 'Poor' or 'Egregious' scores for companies like Peabody Energy, which the report claims used climate science disinformation to oppose the Clean Power Plan.

The Climate Accountability Scorecard evaluates the climate-related actions and disclosures of several major fossil fuel companies, including BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Arch Coal, CONSOL Energy, and Peabody Energy. The report assigns scores based on criteria such as support for the Paris Agreement, the use of internal carbon pricing, and the transparency of greenhouse gas emissions reporting. Findings indicate a widespread lack of company-wide emissions reduction plans and varying levels of transparency regarding low-carbon research and development investments.

South Africa's 2nd Biennial Update Report (2016) provides a comprehensive assessment of the country's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from 2000 to 2012, highlighting the energy sector as the primary contributor. It outlines national mitigation strategies, including the introduction of a carbon tax and carbon budgets, and details the financial resources mobilized from bilateral and multilateral sources. The report also describes the development of a national monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) system and the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory System (NGHGIS) to improve data accuracy and transparency.

ClientEarth asserts that while the UK's Climate Change Act 2008 is legally ambitious, successive governments have failed to implement the necessary governance to meet long-term targets. The report highlights a persistent 'policy gap' for the fourth carbon budget and a decline in investor confidence due to abrupt policy shifts, such as the withdrawal of carbon capture and storage (CCS) funding. It recommends the urgent publication of a detailed, annually updated Emissions Reduction Plan and the restoration of cross-departmental coordination and transparent emissions tracking.

The document identifies approximately CAD 182 million in financial supports for fossil fuel consumption in Saskatchewan in 2015. It argues that these subsidies hinder efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and obstruct Canada's ability to meet G7 subsidy elimination targets. While acknowledging the use of carbon capture and storage technology in the province, the author calls for subsidy reform, increased transparency regarding foregone revenue, and a coordinated federal-provincial approach to support affected industries and workers during the transition.

The report utilizes the "window of opportunity" framework—examining context, champions, concerns, and complementary policies—to analyze coal phase-outs in California, Denmark, France, and Beijing. It highlights how resource endowment, international climate commitments, and public health concerns drive reform. For Beijing, the report details the closure of coal mines and power plants, the role of central and local government coordination, and the impact of high-profile events like the Olympics and APEC summit in accelerating the transition. It concludes that successful nationwide phase-out in China requires viable energy alternatives, social protection for workers, and high-level political leadership supported by grassroots demand.

The paper argues that relying on future large-scale negative emissions to 'undo' current carbon emissions is a high-risk strategy that may lead to insufficient near-term decarbonization. It identifies three primary risk types: technological/biophysical infeasibility, unacceptable social and ecological impacts, and the potential for sequestered carbon to be re-released or for climate impacts to become irreversible. The authors evaluate four land-based options, concluding that while ecosystem restoration and reforestation may provide some viable negative emissions, high-reliance scenarios (e.g., those requiring 1,000 Gt CO2) are likely unachievable. BECCS is highlighted as particularly risky due to unproven commercial scale and extreme land and resource requirements. The paper advocates for a 'zero fossil carbon' goal over 'net zero' to ensure aggressive immediate mitigation.

The report analyzes 35 climate and energy policies for China using the Energy Policy Simulator (EPS), comparing a Reference Scenario (RS) with a Low Carbon (LC) and an Accelerated Low Carbon (ALC) scenario. It finds that carbon pricing, renewable energy standards, and enhanced building codes are among the most effective tools for reducing CO2e emissions. While the LC scenario aims to peak CO2 emissions between 2025 and 2030, the ALC scenario focuses on cost-effectiveness to peak CO2 as soon as possible, achieving a peak in 2022. The analysis highlights that regulatory policies generally drive the majority of emissions reductions, though carbon pricing has the highest overall abatement potential. The report recommends a carbon price of at least 60 RMB per ton, increased renewable energy targets beyond 30% by 2030, and the adoption of MOHURD One Star as the minimum building code standard.

The report analyzes various policy scenarios for China's energy transition, highlighting that carbon pricing and renewable energy standards are the most powerful tools for reducing emissions. It emphasizes that regulatory policies, particularly energy efficiency standards in buildings and industry, are highly cost-effective. The analysis suggests a transition toward a service-based economy and a decarbonized electricity grid to meet emissions peaking goals by 2030.

The report examines the risks of Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) and Coal Chemicals, highlighting their potential to expand coal reserves and increase greenhouse gas emissions. It details environmental failures in Australia, the US, and South Africa, and the massive scale of coal-to-chemical projects in China, concluding that these technologies are incompatible with a 1.5C warming limit.