Search Climate Insights Directory

The report analyzes 23 regulatory instruments from various countries to identify common features of greenwashing policy, such as the use of consumer protection laws, the role of non-binding guidance, and the necessity of scientific substantiation. It highlights a gap between high-level regulatory principles and the practical ability of smaller producers to provide verifiable data, suggesting that voluntary sustainability standards (VSSs) can bridge this gap if regulators establish clear recognition criteria.

The report details the Climate Adaptation Investment Planning (CAIP) framework, a five-step process designed by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to bridge the gap between national adaptation planning and financial implementation. Piloted between 2022 and 2025 in Armenia, Bhutan, Cambodia, Indonesia, Mongolia, and Nepal, the framework emphasizes aligning adaptation with national fiscal cycles, using systemic climate risk diagnostics, and grouping priorities into comprehensive investment packages. Key findings indicate that while most adaptation packages yield high economic returns, financial viability for private investment remains limited and sector-dependent. The report advocates for a country-led, iterative approach that integrates ministries of finance from the outset to ensure adaptation is embedded in public financial management systems.

The report critiques South Africa's National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (NCCAS) 2020 and its 2025 Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) for failing to address the root causes of current vulnerability, such as poverty and inequality. It argues that focusing solely on system resilience—such as 'climate smart agriculture'—without reducing existing vulnerabilities like food insecurity leads to 'maladaptation' and risks a 'downward spiral of undevelopment.' The author proposes shifting from 'incremental adaptation' (technical adjustments) to 'transformative adaptation' (system transitions), incorporating a distributive justice framework similar to that used in energy transitions to ensure that the structural causes of vulnerability are dismantled.

The document argues that financial institutions (FIs) have a responsibility to stop financing activities that drive biodiversity degradation, particularly fossil fuel activities. It proposes a minimum foundation of scientific frameworks—centered on Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) and supplemented by marine and carbon-critical ecosystem frameworks—to define 'no-go zones' where fossil fuel projects should be strictly prohibited. The note emphasizes that existing protected area statuses are often insufficient for effective conservation and suggests the implementation of buffer zones (10 km terrestrial, 50 km marine) to mitigate the wider impact radius of fossil fuel activities.

Between 2021 and 2024, 24 major European banks provided US$41.9 billion to companies developing new gas plants, with 63% of this funding coming from seven banks in France and the UK. The report contends that gas power is not a 'transition fuel' but a source of severe air pollution, price volatility, and long-term greenhouse gas emissions lock-in. It highlights that 78% of this financing is directed toward OECD and European countries, where power sectors are expected to be carbon neutral by 2035. The document concludes that banks must immediately end financial services to gas power expansion to align with a 1.5°C warming limit.

The document argues that current RBF programmes often prioritize short-term connection numbers over long-term business viability, creating 'cliff-edge risks' and deterring commercial investors. It proposes a four-pillar approach: aligning impact metrics with commercial viability (e.g., rewarding energy usage and productive-use connections), adjusting disbursement schedules to support capital raises, introducing risk-mitigation instruments for macroeconomic and operational risks, and fostering ecosystem-wide coordination between governments, funders, and investors.

The report identifies systemic barriers to climate finance in four Asian countries, highlighting widespread capacity gaps in project preparation and risk assessment, fragmented governance, and regulatory uncertainty. It emphasizes that while national strategies often exist on paper, implementation is hindered by a lack of coordination between ministries and a failure to integrate climate priorities into local government mandates. The study specifically notes the exclusion of vulnerable communities and SMEs from finance flows due to a lack of tailored instruments and information. To unlock resources, the authors recommend building climate literacy, clarifying institutional responsibilities, and deploying blended finance tools to de-risk private investment.

The report examines the expansion of geothermal energy in Indonesia, highlighting the role of the World Bank and Asian Development Bank in funding projects that mitigate corporate risk while shifting social and environmental burdens to local communities. It documents specific instances of water depletion, pollution, and human rights abuses, arguing for a 'Feminist Just Transition' to ensure climate justice.

The report examines the impact of geothermal energy development in Indonesia, highlighting a contradiction between its role as a climate solution and the resulting socio-environmental risks. It details how funding from the World Bank and Asian Development Bank (ADB) has accelerated projects that lead to water depletion, pollution, and the displacement of local livelihoods. The document documents specific cases of environmental degradation, such as mudflows and gas leaks, as well as the criminalization of dissent and the marginalization of women and Indigenous peoples. It concludes that the current financial model transfers risk to local communities and calls for a transition based on equity, justice, and the explicit consent of affected populations.

The briefing argues that the ADB's financial intermediary (FI) lending, specifically its $95 million equity investment in Clifford Capital, creates a transparency loophole that allows continued support for fossil gas projects. It highlights that while the ADB claims to 'ring-fence' its funds, Clifford Capital continues to finance oil and gas projects globally and in Asia. The document provides case studies of the Tangguh LNG project in Indonesia and the Bhola-2 gas power plant in Bangladesh to illustrate the environmental and social harms resulting from such investments, including mangrove destruction and forced land acquisition. It concludes that the ADB's reliance on outdated 2009 policies for these investments avoids the stricter requirements of the 2025 Environmental and Social Framework.

The report examines the Asian Development Bank's (ADB) 95 million USD equity investment in Clifford Capital, a Singapore-based financial intermediary. It argues that ADB's use of financial intermediaries (FIs) creates a transparency gap that allows continued support for fossil gas projects, contradicting the bank's stated goals of Paris Agreement alignment. The document highlights specific projects in Indonesia and Bangladesh as examples of environmental and social harm resulting from such investments and calls for a phased exit from fossil gas funding.

The report argues that investing in climate services for health (CSfH) provides high economic returns, ranging from US$3.60 to $68.40 per dollar invested, due to the modest cost of implementation relative to the high value of lives saved. It defines CSfH through seven key activities—including early warning systems, disease surveillance, and resilient infrastructure—and estimates that a median-sized developing country requires an annual investment of US$12 to $18 million. Despite these returns, the study finds significant barriers to uptake, including a lack of integrated meteorological data in health surveillance systems and poor cross-agency collaboration between meteorological and health institutions.

The report details how the EU's strategy to diversify energy supplies has led to an increased reliance on US LNG, which is expected to reach up to 80% of European imports by 2030. This demand fuels infrastructure expansion in the US Gulf Coast and Permian Basin, resulting in ecosystem destruction, hazardous living conditions for residents, and significant methane emissions. The text highlights the role of Italian entities, including the bank Intesa Sanpaolo and energy companies like Eni and Edison, in financing and purchasing this gas, while noting legal disputes over delivery obligations and the environmental 'sacrifice zones' created by relentless extraction.

Analysis of the Global Oil and Gas Extraction Tracker (GOGET) reveals that oil and gas fields now take significantly longer to come online than in the 1960–1980 period, with 2025 startups averaging 15.1 years. This increase is driven by the depletion of easily accessible fields, forcing companies to target technically challenging 'hard-to-recover' reserves, such as ultra-high pressure '20K technology' fields in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and remote Arctic projects in Russia. Additional delays stem from reservoir compositions (e.g., sour gas), ecological risks in protected areas, and more stringent environmental regulations, such as the UK's 2025 guidance on scope three emissions. The report argues that these long lead times increase the risk of creating stranded assets and locking in production that contradicts global climate targets to limit warming to 1.5°C.

The report examines Africa's history of 'premature deindustrialisation' and proposes a strategic shift toward manufacturing to drive structural transformation. It models a scenario where increased investment in R&D, infrastructure, and labour participation leads to significant GDP growth, the creation of millions of jobs, and a substantial reduction in extreme poverty by 2043.

The report argues that Africa is disproportionately vulnerable to climate change and requires substantial support from wealthier nations to transition to renewables. It suggests a gradual phasing out of fossil fuels—starting with coal, then oil, and gas beyond 2050—contrasting with more rapid shifts proposed by other bodies. Key barriers identified include the failure of initiatives like JET-Ps to raise sufficient funds, the unfunded status of the loss and damage fund, and geopolitical tensions between the US, China, and the EU. The authors advocate for a differentiated global carbon tax, the operationalization of the Global Loss and Damage Fund, and the enhancement of Africa's role as a global carbon sink to balance economic growth with climate resilience.

The report details the disproportionate burden of climate change on Africa, noting that since 1984, the continent has faced 1,865 climate-related disasters resulting in US$53 billion in losses. It highlights a critical lack of financial protection, with only 9% of disaster losses insured. Regional analysis shows water-related disasters as the primary threat, with severe flooding in East Africa and historic droughts in Southern Africa and the Horn of Africa. The document also links climate change to the spread of diseases like cholera and malaria, and the risk of desertification in the Sahel and West Africa.

The report identifies a complex web of barriers to industrialisation in Africa, including colonial legacies of extractive industries, chronic infrastructure deficits in power and transport, and a lack of skilled technical labour. It highlights how policy inconsistencies and limited access to affordable long-term finance have hindered growth, while noting that global competition from Asia and the rise of automation challenge the traditional low-wage labour advantage. However, it points to opportunities arising from 'China+1' diversification strategies and the potential of the AfCFTA to reduce internal trade costs.

The document outlines the challenges of industrialisation in Africa, including rising income inequality, fiscal strain from upfront capital investments, and environmental degradation. It emphasizes the need for social safety nets, green infrastructure, and strategic navigation of global trade rules to mitigate these costs, arguing that the cost of inaction—continued poverty and import dependence—is higher than the costs of transition.

The report argues that Africa requires an agricultural revolution through AgTech and improved soil fertility to avoid food insecurity, as per capita production is projected to decline by 2043 despite overall increases. It highlights the role of mobile connectivity in providing credit, insurance, and equipment sharing, while noting that rural electricity and internet gaps remain major barriers. The document also details the critical need for affordable fertilisers, contrasting Africa's low usage (22 kg/ha) with the global average (146 kg/ha), and discusses regional initiatives like the AU's 10-year Fertilizer and Soil Health Action Plan to triple fertiliser use by 2033.