Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that climate coverage must expand beyond problem-focused reporting to include solutions to empower audiences and policymakers. It defines solutions journalism as rigorous, evidence-based reporting that investigates the effectiveness and limitations of responses to the climate crisis. The guide emphasizes equity and justice, noting that marginalized communities—including indigenous peoples, who manage lands containing "approximately the 80% of the biodiversity that remains in the world"—are often the most impacted yet least responsible for the crisis. It categorizes potential story leads into five areas: policy and government (e.g., carbon pricing and subsidies), economy and business (e.g., scrutinizing "greenwash" and "net zero" claims), technologies and practices (distinguishing between mitigation and adaptation), civil society (evaluating the "theory of change" behind activism), and culture (the role of arts and celebrities). The guide concludes that while not all reporting should be solutions-oriented, integrating this mindset is essential to providing a complete picture of the climate emergency.

The document outlines the necessity of a radical reduction in industrial emissions to meet the EU's 2050 climate neutrality goal, arguing that current production-based models must shift toward needs-based models that respect biophysical boundaries. It identifies critical gaps in the European Green Deal's progress on decoupling economic growth from resource use and proposes three primary levers for transition: mobilizing finance through regulatory environments, creating incentives for new business models, and utilizing targeted interventions for demonstration projects.

The document outlines the need for sustainability science to integrate geopolitical realities, warning that the deconstruction of the multilateral trade system and the race for green technology could marginalize developing nations. It emphasizes that the EU must address cross-border climate risks, particularly within the food system, and ensure that the transition to a net-zero food system maintains food security and preparedness. Furthermore, it highlights the extreme vulnerability of the 46 least developed countries (LDCs), which suffer disproportionately from climate change despite minimal emissions, and urges careful design of trade mechanisms like Carbon Border Adjustment to avoid harming these nations.

The Canadian Climate Institute argues that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's (PBO) analysis of carbon pricing is flawed because it ignores the economic costs of climate change and the global shift toward carbon neutrality. While acknowledging the PBO's finding that 80% of households in most provinces benefit from rebates, the Institute asserts that the PBO uses a fictitious scenario of zero climate consequences and fails to account for the risk to Canada's competitiveness and exports in a world where 92% of global GDP comes from countries targeting carbon neutrality.

The document argues that the steel and cement sectors in India are 'hard-to-abate' and require coordinated government, industry, and financial action to avoid carbon lock-in. Because breakthrough technologies (TRL 5-9) are currently commercially unviable and increase production costs—by up to 45% for steel and 80% for cement—market forces alone cannot drive their adoption. The authors recommend a policy mix of carbon pricing, public funding for demonstration pilots, capex subsidies, green public procurement, and embodied-carbon standards. Additionally, the brief emphasizes the need for a supporting enabling environment, including CO2 and hydrogen infrastructure, streamlined permitting, and concessional finance from international sources.

The Canadian Climate Institute views the 2023 federal budget as a strategic response to the US Inflation Reduction Act, utilizing investment tax credits, the Canada Growth Fund, and the Canada Infrastructure Bank to mobilize private capital for clean energy. Key priorities include clean electricity, hydrogen production, and climate resilience funding.

The Canadian Climate Institute identifies two primary priorities for Budget 2023: attracting clean investment to compete with the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act and expanding the national electricity system. The Institute recommends using carbon contracts for difference to leverage carbon pricing and implementing investment tax credits and 'electric federalism' to modernize electricity infrastructure.

The Canadian Climate Institute identifies two main priorities for the 2023 federal budget: attracting clean investment to compete with the US Inflation Reduction Act and expanding the electrical grid. It recommends using carbon contracts for difference instead of direct subsidies and implementing an 'electro-federalism' approach to coordinate grid improvements with provinces.

The Canadian Climate Institute recommends a strategic approach to clean growth that leverages limited public funds to attract private investment. Key proposals include fixing market failures, releasing carbon price schedules beyond 2030, implementing clear exit strategies for public support, and ensuring the Canada Growth Fund maintains political independence and promotes Indigenous majority ownership.

The report recommends a strategic approach to clean growth in Canada, emphasizing the use of public funds to correct market failures rather than simply matching US subsidies. Key recommendations include extending the carbon pricing schedule beyond 2030, implementing carbon contracts for difference, and ensuring the Canada Growth Fund operates with political independence and a mandate for Indigenous-led projects.

The document argues that current British Columbia regulations are insufficient to meet 2025 methane reduction targets, as emissions are often underestimated and compliance is low. It recommends implementing more stringent standards by 2025, including the elimination of routine venting and flaring, lower tank emission limits, and monthly instrument-based leak detection and repair (LDAR). The coalition also urges the province to accelerate its target for near-zero methane emissions from 2035 to 2030, aligning with the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI). Specific technical recommendations cover the adoption of zero-bleed pneumatic equipment, tighter standards for reciprocating and centrifugal compressors, and the implementation of a 'super emitter' response program based on third-party remote monitoring.

The We Mean Business Coalition asserts that current climate plans are insufficient to meet Paris Agreement goals and that staying within the 1.5°C limit requires a total phase-out of fossil fuels. The statement urges G7 governments to lead by redirecting subsidies, pricing carbon, and accelerating the uptake of clean energy technologies. It calls on businesses to develop science-aligned transition plans and invest in decarbonized solutions to ensure a secure and equitable global energy transition.

Clean Energy Canada and the Canadian Climate Institute advocate for the rapid finalization of the Clean Electricity Regulations (CER) to provide investment certainty for non-emitting generation. They support a flexible performance standard and an emissions pooling approach but warn against excessive flexibility that could incentivize the continued use of natural gas as a baseload resource. The authors recommend a performance standard of no more than 60 tonnes of CO2 per GWh and oppose extending the End of Prescribed Life (EoPL) beyond 20 years to avoid stranded assets and prolonged emissions.

The author contends that while carbon pricing is Canada's primary decarbonization driver, it is insufficient alone to attract the private capital needed for a net zero economy. To remain competitive, especially against the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, Canada needs to address market failures caused by historical fossil fuel subsidies and the high risks associated with first-of-their-kind low-carbon projects. The document recommends implementing carbon contracts for difference, investment tax credits, and a clean investment taxonomy, all integrated into a coordinated strategic framework to avoid ad hoc spending and maximize social returns.

The author contends that while carbon pricing is a vital tool, Canada needs a broader strategic framework to address market failures—such as fossil fuel subsidies and high initial capital costs—and to respond to international competition like the US Inflation Reduction Act. The paper suggests combining carbon pricing with targeted public incentives, a clean investment taxonomy, and sector-specific growth strategies to attract private capital efficiently without excessive or scattered public spending.

The document examines the constraints of the current international finance architecture for Africa, noting that between 2016 and 2020, the continent received only $19.5 billion in climate funding against annual adaptation needs of $30-50 billion. It proposes that the G20 can bridge this gap by developing green finance taxonomies, promoting risk sharing through multilateral development bank guarantees, and facilitating carbon pricing. The author advocates for the use of debt-for-climate swaps to alleviate debt burdens while funding nature conservation and the expansion of Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs), citing the South African model. Additionally, the paper highlights the role of natural gas as a transition fuel and the importance of investing in the AFOLU sector, which contributed 56% of Africa's total emissions in 2016.

The policy brief examines four international models of clean growth financing to provide lessons for Canada's transition to carbon neutrality by 2050. It highlights Australia's Clean Energy Finance Corporation for its dual focus on profitability and emissions reduction, the UK's contracts for difference for effective risk-sharing in renewable energy, Norway's Longship project for its holistic state support of carbon capture and storage, and the US Inflation Reduction Act's use of tax credits tied to carbon intensity and social standards for hydrogen production.

The document outlines a comprehensive framework of 101 sustainable finance policies categorized by three primary ambitions: speed, steer, and simplify. It provides specific recommendations across various government departments—including fiscal, trade, energy, and industrial policy—as well as for central banks and financial regulators. The guide emphasizes the need for science-based targets, the removal of fossil fuel subsidies, the use of green taxonomies, and the implementation of derisking mechanisms like blended finance to mobilize private capital for the 1.5°C transition.

The cement sector is a major industrial emitter, accounting for approximately 7% of global CO2 emissions and 4% of EU emissions. The report argues that the current decade is critical because 30% of EU cement kilns will reach the end of their life by 2030, presenting a window to avoid stranded assets by investing in low-carbon technologies. Key technical levers include reducing the clinker-to-cement ratio, implementing carbon capture and storage (CCS), and substituting fossil fuels with biomass and waste. To support this, the report recommends a comprehensive policy suite: upstream (accelerating renewable energy and CO2 infrastructure), midstream (implementing Carbon Contracts for Difference and phasing out ETS free allowances), and downstream (mandating green public procurement and scaling off-take agreements). It also highlights the role of sustainable finance, noting that while sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs) have been issued, their potential in the cement sector remains under-exploited due to a lack of sector-specific standards.

The report argues that Canada cannot reach its 2050 net-zero goals through energy transitions alone, as material extraction and processing account for a significant portion of global emissions. It identifies key opportunities in the steel, cement, plastics, and organic waste sectors, emphasizing that reducing primary demand and extending product lifespans offer greater emission reductions than recycling alone. The document highlights the lack of comprehensive national circularity plans in Canada compared to leaders like Japan and the EU, and recommends implementing digital product passports, carbon pricing, and updated building codes to accelerate the transition.