Search Climate Insights Directory

The aviation sector contributes 2% of global CO2 emissions, with projections suggesting these could triple by 2050 without policy intervention. While Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAFs) are the primary current solution, the report argues that the term is imprecise and that relying solely on biofuels would require quadrupling global production by 2030 and quintupling it by 2040, posing severe risks to land use, biodiversity, and food security. To meet projected global energy demands of 15.9 quads in 2030 and 21.5 quads in 2050, the report advocates for a shift toward scalable zero-emission fuels (SZEFs)—including hydrogen and synthetic fuels created via direct air capture (DAC)—and electric propulsion. It provides specific policy recommendations for the U.S. and EU, including RD&D investments, carbon intensity standards, and the phasing out of free emission allowances.

The document argues that carbon offsets are scientifically flawed and act as a barrier to necessary emissions reductions, exposing companies to significant legal risks including consumer protection lawsuits, regulatory enforcement, and shareholder actions.

The Fund for Nature (TFFN) is a financial instrument designed to provide market-rate project-level debt to nature-based carbon projects, primarily in Sub-Saharan Africa. By offering an alternative to the common practice of pre-selling carbon credits at steep discounts to corporate buyers, TFFN aims to increase the revenue captured by local project implementers and communities. A central innovation of the fund is the development of a standardized, open-sourced Simple Agreement for Future Offtake (SAFO), which serves as a bankable document to secure future carbon credit supply and act as collateral for debt. The fund targets the agriculture, forestry, and blue carbon sectors, specifically focusing on afforestation, reforestation, and revegetation (ARR) and reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+). A pilot fund of USD 50-70 million is envisioned, with the potential to scale as voluntary carbon markets are projected to grow significantly by 2030.

The report examines the rapid growth of proof-of-work cryptocurrency mining in the U.S. following China's 2021 ban. It argues that the industry's high energy demands drive the revival of defunct fossil-fuel power plants, increase greenhouse gas emissions, and place financial burdens on electricity ratepayers. The document also details local harms, including noise and water pollution, and debunks industry claims regarding sustainability and grid stability.

The 2022 Private Equity Climate Risks Scorecard evaluates eight major private equity firms, finding that most maintain significant fossil fuel holdings and lack transparency. The Carlyle Group ranked lowest (F), while TPG earned a B due to a smaller fossil fuel portfolio. The report advocates for five primary demands, including alignment with 1.5°C warming targets and full disclosure of emissions and fossil fuel exposure.

The Private Equity Climate Risks Scorecard 2022 evaluates eight major private equity firms on their fossil fuel exposure, downstream emissions, and alignment with science-based climate targets. The analysis finds that most of these firms maintain significant fossil fuel holdings and lack transparency, with The Carlyle Group ranking lowest (F) and TPG Capital ranking highest (B). The report argues that private equity firms often acquire polluting assets shed by public markets, thereby increasing climate and financial risks while operating with minimal regulatory oversight. It concludes with five primary demands for the industry, including aligning with 1.5°C warming targets and disclosing full fossil fuel exposure.

The document outlines a step-by-step process for assessing organisational GHG footprints, based on international standards like the GHG Protocol and ISO 14064. It defines three scopes of emissions: Scope 1 (direct), Scope 2 (indirect energy), and Scope 3 (other indirect value chain emissions). A central feature is the provision of a database of emission factors specifically developed for the Estonian context, covering energy production, vehicle fuels, and waste management. The guide also discusses the relationship between GHG accounting and regulatory frameworks such as the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), and the EMAS environmental management system.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that 'net zero' is a global scientific concept that should not be applied to individual entities, as doing so encourages the use of ineffective offsets and speculative technologies. CIEL recommends that standards for non-state entities require absolute emissions reductions, the inclusion of Scope 3 emissions, and a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels. The document specifically criticizes the fossil fuel industry for using net-zero pledges to mask continued production and warns that reliance on Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS) and technological Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) is risky and unproven. It advocates for mandatory regulation, transparent reporting, and the integration of human rights and climate justice into all net-zero frameworks.

Reclaim Finance argues that net-zero commitments must be aligned with a 1.5°C temperature goal, requiring an immediate cessation of investment in new oil, coal, and gas projects. The submission emphasizes that at least 90% of reductions should be achieved by stopping emissions at the source, with carbon removals reserved only for residual emissions. It calls for absolute interim targets—specifically a 50% reduction in CO2 by 2030—and transparent transition plans that include meaningful sanctions for non-compliance. The document also warns against the use of fossil gas as a transition fuel and the practice of selling high-emitting assets to avoid decarbonization targets.

The document outlines how corruption—defined as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain—can sabotage conservation projects. It analyzes three specific intervention types: Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES), carbon offset co-benefits, and benefit-sharing in Protected Areas (PA) and Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures (OECM). For each, it identifies systemic risks such as elite capture, data manipulation, and the misappropriation of funds, while proposing responses including participatory planning, independent monitoring, and the establishment of grievance mechanisms.

The document outlines how corruption—defined as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain—can sabotage sustainable livelihood projects. It provides a framework for analyzing corruption through the lens of incentive, opportunity, and rationalization. The guide is structured into three modules: Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES), carbon compensation co-benefits, and benefit sharing from protected areas (PAs) and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs). For each, it identifies specific risks—such as elite capture, data manipulation, and the diversion of funds—and proposes corresponding responses, including the use of integrity pacts, grievance redress mechanisms, and inclusive, rights-based stakeholder engagement.

The document outlines how corruption can sabotage conservation efforts by creating opportunities for illicit private gain. It provides a framework for addressing these risks across three main intervention types: payments for ecosystem services (PES), carbon offsets, and protected areas/Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures (OECM). For each, it identifies specific corruption risks—such as elite capture, data manipulation, and the undermining of land rights—and suggests corresponding anti-corruption responses, including participatory mechanisms, transparency requirements, and independent accountability systems.

ClientEarth warns EMR Capital that financing the proposed Whitehaven coal mine in West Cumbria poses significant climate-related financial risks and may breach fiduciary duties to investors. The letter highlights the mine's incompatibility with the 1.5°C warming limit and the likelihood of it becoming a stranded asset due to declining demand for coking coal in the UK and EU steel industries. ClientEarth further asserts that the investment contradicts EMR Capital's status as a UN PRI signatory and its own ESG policy, potentially exposing the firm to legal challenges and accusations of greenwashing.

ClientEarth argues that the TPT framework must mandate absolute emissions reductions aligned with a 1.5°C scenario, including Scope 3 emissions, and prohibit reliance on offsets. The organization emphasizes the need for transition plans to be integrated into financial statements and for named directors to be held accountable for delivery. It specifically calls for the prioritization of high-emitting sectors and the inclusion of 'financed emissions' for financial institutions to ensure real-world decarbonization.

The report finds that targeted methane abatement finance is severely underfunded, representing less than 2% of total climate finance at USD 11.6 billion in 2019/2020. Despite the high mitigation potential and availability of low-cost technologies, particularly in the fossil fuel sector, investment is disproportionately concentrated in the waste sector. The authors argue that a tenfold increase in annual finance is required to meet the estimated USD 119 billion needed to keep warming under +2C.

The Carbon-OFF plan, published by Scientists for Global Responsibility, outlines a strategy for philanthropic organisations to align with the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C target. The plan focuses on three pillars: reducing operational emissions using the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) Net Zero Standard, divesting financial assets and pensions from fossil fuels to increase the cost of capital for the industry, and leveraging funding power to require grant applicants to adopt net-zero standards and divest from fossil fuels.

The Net Zero Stocktake 2022 finds that while net zero target setting has expanded significantly—particularly among national governments and large companies—there is an 'alarming lack of credibility' across the landscape. Fewer than one-fifth of national and sub-national targets meet minimum procedural robustness standards, and 65% of corporate targets similarly fail these standards. The report highlights a widespread lack of transparency regarding the use of external offset credits and a deficiency in covering Scope 3 emissions among companies.

The Net Zero Stocktake 2022 finds that while net zero target setting is becoming nearly universal at the national level and increasing among corporations and cities, a significant lack of credibility and robustness persists. Fewer than one-fifth of national and sub-national targets meet minimum procedural standards, and 65% of corporate targets fail these same standards. The report highlights a widespread lack of transparency regarding the use of external offset credits and a deficiency in Scope 3 emissions coverage among companies.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) outlines a framework of ten 'guard rails' to ensure that the voluntary use of nature-based solution (NBS) carbon credits supports the 1.5°C warming limit and protects biodiversity and human rights. The guidance distinguishes between using credits to 'counterbalance' unabated emissions—which requires a science-based reduction pathway—and using them to 'contribute' to a jurisdiction's climate mitigation. WRI emphasizes a shift from project-level to jurisdictional-scale REDD+ credits and mandates transparent reporting aligned with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol.

The document critiques the 'net zero' framework, asserting that it relies on the scientifically flawed assumption that ongoing fossil fuel emissions can be offset by carbon removals. It specifically analyzes how initiatives like ART-TREES and the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM) attempt to standardize and merge different types of carbon credits—avoided emissions, reduced emissions, and removals—into single, fungible assets to increase market scale. The report warns that this 'house of cards' encourages continued fossil fuel use, risks creating a 'subprime carbon' financial crisis through derivatives and speculation, and threatens the rights of Indigenous peoples through land grabbing for nature-based solutions.