Search Climate Insights Directory

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) warns that Section 912(b)(15) of the Customs Bill would hinder climate mitigation by preventing trade agreements from requiring changes to U.S. law regarding global warming. CIEL argues this would leave domestic policies vulnerable to trade challenges, weaken U.S. bargaining power in UNFCCC and CITES negotiations, and block the use of trade agreements to phase out fossil fuel subsidies or promote green technologies, specifically citing risks to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and U.S.-China climate cooperation.

The report argues that while hundreds of billions are spent annually on land use, most are 'business-as-usual' (BAU) investments that may increase climate vulnerability. To shift this, the authors propose three tools: the Landscape of Land Use Finance to map current flows and gaps; the Financial Viability-Gap Analysis to identify where public incentives can make green projects financially feasible; and the Public Finance Mapping tool to ensure policy coherence and identify BAU subsidies. These tools aim to help low and middle-income countries scale up private investment in green agriculture, forestry, and land management.

The report argues that land use generates nearly a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions and is highly vulnerable to climate change, yet most investment in the sector remains 'business as usual' (BAU). To address this, the authors propose three tools: a Land Use Sector Financing Landscape to map current financial flows and actors; a Financial Viability Gap analysis to identify the costs and risks preventing green investments; and a Public Financing Mapping analysis to ensure coherence among public financial instruments and incentives. These tools aim to help governments shift funding from BAU activities to green alternatives without compromising economic development.

The report argues that while land use generates about a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions and is highly vulnerable to climate change, current investments are predominantly 'business-as-usual'. It introduces three tools—a land-use finance landscape, a financial viability gap analysis, and a public finance mapping tool—to help governments identify funding gaps, assess the financial viability of green projects, and ensure policy coherence to unlock private and public investment in sustainable land management.

The report addresses the challenge of redirecting hundreds of billions of dollars spent annually on high-emission 'business-as-usual' (BAU) land-use activities toward sustainable 'green' alternatives. It argues that limited understanding of current financial flows inhibits effective public intervention. To solve this, the authors propose three tools: Land Use Finance Mapping to visualize current spending and identify gaps; Financial Viability Gap Analysis to determine why sustainable activities are not financially attractive and how public incentives can bridge that gap; and Public Incentive Mapping to ensure coherence across government policies and align them with sustainable production goals.

The report addresses the challenge of transitioning to low-carbon, productive land use by identifying gaps in the understanding of current financial flows. It argues that while hundreds of billions are invested in agriculture and forestry, most support non-sustainable practices. To remedy this, the authors introduce three tools: a financial flow mapping tool to visualize investments and actors, a financial viability analysis tool to identify and bridge the gap between 'green' and business-as-usual costs, and a public incentive mapping tool to ensure policy coherence and maximize private investment.

The report argues that while land use generates approximately a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions and is highly vulnerable to climate change, current financial flows are predominantly 'business-as-usual' (BAU). To address this, the authors introduce three tools: the Landscape of Land Use Finance, the Financial Viability Gap Analysis tool, and the Public Finance Mapping tool. These tools are designed to help low and middle-income countries identify financial blockages, assess the viability of green projects, and ensure policy coherence to scale up private sector investment in climate-resilient agriculture and forestry.

The document outlines the importance of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) as public outlines of national climate plans starting in 2020. It establishes a set of criteria for a 'strong' INDC—defined as fair, ambitious, feasible, and transparent—and provides a detailed six-question evaluation framework. This framework guides users to check for clear statements of intent (mitigation and adaptation), alignment with climate science (specifically the 2 degrees C goal), fairness based on national circumstances, the strength of the design process, implementation feasibility, and methodological transparency.

The document outlines the criteria for a 'strong' Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC), emphasizing that such commitments must be fair, ambitious, and scientifically grounded. It provides a detailed evaluation framework based on six key questions: clarity of intent, scientific consistency, fairness and ambition, process robustness, implementation viability, and transparency. The guide distinguishes between mitigation approaches (actions vs. direct effects) and encourages the inclusion of adaptation components based on evidence of climate risks. It stresses that INDCs should drive a 'transformative' decarbonization pace to align with the goal of limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius.

The document argues that climate change impacts will make the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) "almost impossibly challenging" for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) unless there is an urgent increase in the ambition of climate and development actions. The analysis is based primarily on evidence from the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and aims to inform negotiations regarding the post-2015 agenda, development financing, and a new climate change agreement.

The document argues that failing to integrate gender equality into climate change mitigation projects can reinforce existing inequalities and reduce project efficacy. It highlights that women are often viewed as victims rather than active leaders in climate solutions. Drawing from case studies in Nepal, Mali, and Colombia, the report emphasizes that gender mainstreaming, the use of socially disaggregated data, and gender-sensitive institutional policies are essential for the success and long-term viability of mitigation initiatives, ranging from large-scale transport to small-scale off-grid energy projects.

The report assesses the global climate finance landscape, highlighting the critical role of public finance in catalyzing private investment. It examines various financial tools—including green bonds, carbon pricing, and risk mitigation instruments—and analyzes the performance of multilateral development banks and bilateral agencies. The document emphasizes that while global flows have increased, significant gaps remain in tracking private finance and achieving the USD 100 billion goal due to low carbon prices and a lack of stable enabling environments in developing nations.

The policy brief contends that the deadlock in global climate finance negotiations stems from a lack of predictability in financial flows. It suggests that Africa can lead a breakthrough for the Paris (COP21) conference by shifting focus from quantifying 'adequate' finance to securing 'predictable' flows. The author argues that by demonstrating the ability to effectively deploy available resources and aligning adaptation needs with low-carbon development pathways, African nations can create a 'win-win' scenario that encourages developed nations to provide sustained funding. The brief recommends identifying off-budget and market-driven financial sources to avoid the unreliability of traditional budget support.

The briefing identifies three critical action areas for negotiators in Bonn: establishing predictable 'cycles of action' for climate plans, defining long-term mitigation and adaptation goals, and planning for post-2020 climate finance. It argues that negotiators must now prioritize core issues and remove redundancies from the negotiating text to remain on track for an ambitious outcome at COP 21 in December.

The paper examines the interactions between EU energy security and climate mitigation policies, finding general coherence in several subfields but noting that some interactions require further attention. It argues that future coherence depends on whether the energy security agenda is framed as nationally fragmented or as a coordinated European effort.

The document describes a research project conducted by NewClimate Institute and Ecofys for the German Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) to assess the status of CDM projects following a decline in market conditions.

The report examines the relationship between the 2015 climate agreement and the post-2015 sustainable development goals (SDGs), arguing that a high-ambition agreement is essential for achieving the SDGs by 2030. It analyzes two scenarios—high-ambition and low-ambition—focusing on policies and investment in mitigation and adaptation, with the high-ambition scenario aligned with the UNFCCC goal of limiting global warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

This document is an appeal submitted by Earthlife Africa Johannesburg on 11 May 2015 to the Minister of Environmental Affairs. The appeal challenges the environmental authorisation granted on 25 February 2015 to Newshelf 1282 (Pty) Limited for the construction of the 1200 megawatt (MW) coal-fired Thabametsi power station near Lephalale in the Limpopo Province. The appellant argues that the decision was unlawful, failed to consider critical air quality and water scarcity issues, ignored climate change obligations, and violated the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA).

The document offers a comprehensive framework for LDCs and SIDS to develop INDCs, emphasizing that these countries may communicate strategies and plans for low greenhouse gas emission development reflecting their special circumstances. It provides detailed templates for national context, mitigation contributions (both action-based and outcome-based), adaptation plans, planning processes, and means of implementation. The guide highlights the importance of identifying conditional contributions dependent on international finance, technology transfer, and capacity-building, while encouraging the capture of synergies between mitigation and adaptation to build political momentum and attract international support.

The document offers a structured approach for LDCs and SIDS to develop INDCs, emphasizing that these countries may use strategies, plans, or specific projects rather than absolute emission reductions. It provides templates for mitigation (action-based or result-based), adaptation, planning processes, and means of implementation, while highlighting the importance of transparency, national circumstances, and the pursuit of co-benefits such as poverty reduction and energy access.