Search Climate Insights Directory

This report by the NewClimate Institute examines the role of asset managers and owners in aligning financial flows with climate goals. It argues that while net zero portfolio targets are becoming common, they are insufficient for achieving a 1.5°C pathway. The document highlights the underutilised leverage of 'universal owners'—the largest asset managers and owners—who can influence the real economy through exclusion, divestment, and engagement, but currently fail to pressure high-emitting companies to decarbonise.

RMI argues against the use of climate finance from wealthy nations to support natural gas development in the Global South, asserting that such a move would jeopardize the 1.5°C global warming target and the goals of the Paris Agreement. The document contends that fossil gas is a poor investment for developing countries due to supply dependency, price volatility, and the risk of methane leakage.

The IDFC Green Finance Mapping 2022 report details the green finance commitments of International Development Finance Club (IDFC) member institutions for 2021, noting a record high of USD 224 billion in total commitments.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) criticizes the $8.5-billion Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) and its Investment Plan (JET-IP) as a market-centric deal that prioritizes private investor profits over South African local development. The IEJ argues that the deal's reliance on loans and private-sector 'de-risking' threatens to increase energy costs, maintain high state financial risk, and fail to provide adequate social security or local manufacturing support for workers in the coal belt.

The NewClimate Institute reports that global expansion of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and fossil gas is undermining the Paris Agreement and the 1.5°C warming limit. Despite some policy progress in the US, China, and the EU, current 2030 targets put the world on a path toward 2.4°C of warming, while the pipeline of new LNG capacity threatens to significantly increase emissions by 2030.

This research paper from the Stockholm Environment Institute argues that the UNFCCC climate regime's resilience to global crises depends on addressing structural inequities and power imbalances between the Global North and Global South, which were exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic.

This policy brief by Zero Carbon Analytics explores the establishment of comprehensive loss and damage facilities at the national level for African countries to address climate-induced economic and non-economic losses. It distinguishes between avoidable, unavoided, and unavoidable risks, proposing a framework that combines risk finance (e.g., insurance, bonds) and curative finance (e.g., trust funds, impact investments) to build resilience and provide compensation.

A statement by the Life After Coal (LAC) campaign—comprising the Centre for Environmental Rights, Earthlife Africa, and groundWork—urging the South African government to lead at COP27 by supporting climate-vulnerable nations and accelerating a domestic Just Transition away from fossil fuels.

This brief report by the Climate Policy Initiative presents preliminary findings from a study on global climate finance for agriculture, forestry, other land uses, and fisheries (AFOLU). It highlights a significant funding gap, noting that AFOLU receives only a small fraction of total climate finance despite the sectors' high emissions and economic importance, particularly in low-income countries.

This policy brief by the African Center for Economic Transformation outlines the significant climate finance gap facing Africa and proposes six priorities for the continent at COP27, including immediate technical assistance and long-term financial commitments.

This statement argues that climate-induced loss and damage is a human rights crisis, using the 2022 Pakistan floods as a primary example of systemic rights violations. The authors call on wealthy nations and corporate actors to accept responsibility and urge COP27 to implement rights-based solutions, including a public, grant-based Loss and Damage Finance Facility and the operationalization of the Warsaw International Mechanism and Santiago Network.

A statement by the Global Climate and Health Alliance calling for the integration of health metrics into climate action and the cessation of fossil fuel financing to protect public health, issued ahead of COP27.

The Global Climate and Health Alliance calls for governments at COP27 to treat climate change as a public health imperative. Key demands include a full fossil fuel phase-out, the fulfillment of the $100B climate finance goal for low-income countries, and the establishment of a formal process for 'loss and damage' funding specifically for health systems. The document highlights that the healthcare sector contributes 4-5% of global emissions and argues that health metrics should be integrated into the Global Stocktake and the Global Goal on Adaptation.

This report by the Climate Policy Initiative analyzes the climate finance landscape in Ethiopia for the 2019/2020 period, highlighting a significant gap between committed investments and estimated needs, as well as a heavy reliance on international public grants.

This document is an invitation and overview of a Congressional briefing series hosted by the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) regarding the COP27 international climate negotiations in Egypt. It outlines the transition of international cooperation toward the implementation of the Paris Agreement and lists the key topics and questions addressed by a panel of experts during the briefing.

This report by the Stockholm Environment Institute outlines principles and operational modalities for loss and damage finance grounded in climate justice, arguing that current climate finance architectures are unsuitable for addressing the needs of vulnerable communities.

This policy brief by the Climate Policy Initiative outlines seven key actions for national governments to scale financing for urban climate adaptation and resilience. It highlights a significant gap between urban climate mitigation and adaptation funding, arguing that while cities are critical economic hubs and highly vulnerable to climate risks, adaptation projects often lack the quantifiable financial returns and clear mandates needed to attract private and public investment.

This policy brief by the Institute for Economic Justice analyzes the USD 8.5 billion Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) in South Africa. It argues that the deal's reliance on blended finance and Independent Power Producers (IPPs) shifts commercial risks to the state and consumers while privatizing gains. The document warns that this 'de-risking' approach may worsen South Africa's fiscal position, increase energy poverty through higher tariffs, and undermine local renewable energy manufacturing. It proposes alternative pathways, including the regulation of private finance, debt cancellation for 'odious debt', climate reparations, and the implementation of allocative green credit policies.

This policy brief by the Institute for Economic Justice critiques the USD 8.5 billion Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) for South Africa, arguing that its reliance on 'de-risking' private finance through Independent Power Producers (IPPs) and blended finance shifts commercial risks to the state while privatising gains. The authors contend that this model threatens to increase energy poverty, worsen the national debt profile, and undermine the localisation of renewable energy manufacturing. The document proposes alternative financing pathways, including the regulation of PPPs, debt cancellation for 'odious debt', climate reparations, and the implementation of allocative green credit policies.

This research paper by the Stockholm Environment Institute assesses international development finance for nature-based solutions (NbS) to climate change from 2016 to 2020. Using OECD DAC data, the authors identify a declining trend in climate finance that also targets biodiversity objectives and highlight significant funding gaps for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs). The paper concludes that current financial reporting is insufficient to verify whether these investments deliver tangible biodiversity benefits.