Search Climate Insights Directory

The South African Climate Finance Landscape 2025 reports an annual average of ZAR 188.3 billion in climate finance for 2022–2023, though this remains well below the estimated annual need of up to ZAR 499 billion. Investment is heavily skewed toward the energy sector, which receives 74.1% of total flows, primarily for renewable electricity generation. In contrast, adaptation finance is lagging, accounting for only 11.3% of tracked flows. While domestic sources provide nearly 60% of funding, international flows are dominated by public development finance institutions, particularly from Western Europe. The report highlights significant barriers, including grid bottlenecks, policy uncertainty, and a lack of concessional capital for high-risk or non-revenue-generating adaptation and just transition projects.

The report finds that while the UK acknowledges the link between climate change and health, practical policy integration is limited by siloed government departments, chronic underfunding, and short-term thinking. It highlights the 'Greener NHS' initiative as a relative success and suggests leveraging the NHS's scale and learning from devolved governments in Wales and Scotland to advance a holistic, systems-thinking approach that prioritises vulnerable populations and emphasises health co-benefits.

The report synthesizes 225 interviews with stakeholders to assess how climate and health policies are integrated. It finds that while these policies are currently siloed, there is a strong consensus that integration is necessary to maximize co-benefits and address complex health threats. The document identifies systemic barriers such as funding shortages and institutional silos, while proposing strategies like 'health in all policies' and the use of trusted health professionals as climate advocates.

The report finds that climate and health policies in Brazil are currently poorly connected, though there is a growing movement toward integration. Stakeholders identify significant barriers, including political polarization, a lack of risk perception, and institutional silos. However, they see opportunities in the upcoming COP30, the wide reach of the Unified Health System (SUS), and Brazil's renewable energy strengths. Recommended strategies include improving scientific communication, adopting 'Planetary Health' and 'One Health' frameworks, and increasing intersectoral governance to create a more resilient national health and climate infrastructure.

A November 2025 survey of 990 registered U.S. voters reveals broad support for clean energy research, soil restoration, and the Paris Climate Agreement, though global warming remains a low-priority voting issue overall. While 59% prefer candidates who support climate action, only 1% rank it as their most important voting issue. There is strong bipartisan support for the proposed Foreign Pollution Fee Act (78%) and protecting workers from extreme heat (92%). However, actual political engagement remains low, with only 10% of voters having contacted government officials about global warming in the past year.

The report presents findings from a nationally representative survey of 2,000 Indonesian adults conducted in 2025. While 73% of respondents report knowing little to nothing about climate change, 86% believe it is happening after receiving a definition. There is strong public support for clean energy policies, including a 79% favorability rate for banning new coal plants and an 83% support rate for the government's 2060 net-zero commitment. However, a gap exists between personal concern (88%) and actual engagement, with very few respondents having taken political action to address the issue.

The document identifies 14 distinct tactics of climate obstruction used during UNFCCC negotiations, ranging from overt rejection to subtle procedural delays. It argues that obstruction is unevenly distributed, with wealthier and fossil-fuel-producing nations exercising disproportionate influence. The brief maps these tactics across negotiation stages and predicts their likely application at COP30 in areas such as the Global Goal on Adaptation, fossil fuel phase-outs, and climate finance.

The report identifies four technical pillars for industrial decarbonization in East Asia: energy and material efficiency, electrification with renewable energy, CCUS, and green hydrogen/clean feedstocks. It highlights significant barriers, including high fossil fuel dependence, insufficient clean power infrastructure, a lack of fit-for-purpose finance, and a skills gap in the workforce. The document proposes a comprehensive policy package focusing on industry-power co-optimization, cluster-based financing, and vocational training to achieve net-zero targets by 2050 or 2060.

The report provides a comprehensive roadmap for industrial decarbonization in East Asia, focusing on China, Indonesia, and Viet Nam. It proposes a six-tier technical strategy ranging from energy efficiency to green hydrogen and clean feedstocks. The analysis highlights that while efficiency and 'easy electrification' are cost-effective, deeper decarbonization requires massive investments—USD 1.7 trillion cumulatively through 2050 for industry alone across the three nations—and a fully decarbonized power grid. It recommends a policy package centered on carbon pricing, renewable energy procurement, and workforce reskilling to overcome high upfront costs and technical barriers.

The 2025 Impact Report details the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative's progress in securing diplomatic support, engaging subnational governments, and conducting research to create a 1.5ºC-aligned mechanism for phasing out fossil fuels. Key achievements include the announcement of the First International Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels for April 2026, the addition of Cambodia and Saint Kitts and Nevis to the participating nations, and a resolution in support of the treaty passed by the IUCN. The initiative has grown to include 18 participating countries from the Global South, over 140 cities, and 4,200 civil society organizations.

The document critiques biodiversity offsetting and crediting mechanisms, asserting that they simplify complex ecosystems into tradable units, facilitate greenwashing by corporations, and threaten the land rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. It argues that these market-based approaches are 'worse than nothing' because they provide an illusion of progress while bypassing the mitigation hierarchy. Instead, the authors advocate for transformational change, the redirection of harmful subsidies, and the provision of biodiversity finance through grants and direct access to Indigenous-led governance systems.

The document critiques biodiversity offsets and credits, asserting that these mechanisms facilitate continued environmental destruction through 'greenwashing' and risk violating human rights. It argues that nature's complexity cannot be reduced to tradable units and suggests redirecting existing harmful subsidies toward indigenous-led conservation and direct grants instead of market-based instruments.

The document critiques biodiversity credits and offsets as illusory mechanisms that facilitate 'greenwashing' and allow destructive companies to avoid responsibility. It argues that these market-based tools simplify complex ecosystems into tradable units, often leading to human rights violations, land grabbing, and the displacement of local communities. The text suggests that instead of market mechanisms, biodiversity should be funded by redirecting harmful subsidies and supporting indigenous-led governance.

The document critiques biodiversity offsets and credits, describing them as 'false solutions' that facilitate continued environmental destruction through 'greenwashing'. It argues that these mechanisms simplify complex ecosystems into tradable units, often fail to achieve actual ecological restoration, and risk causing human rights violations, including land grabbing and forced displacement of indigenous communities. The text advocates for transformative changes and direct funding—such as redirecting harmful subsidies—over market-based commodification of nature.

The report critiques debt-for-nature swaps as 'greenwashing' tools that benefit private creditors and international NGOs while stripping Global South countries of territorial control. It details how these financial instruments often replace old debt with new, higher-interest loans and divert funds into financial markets before they reach conservation projects. The document highlights specific cases in countries like Ecuador, Belize, and Gabon to illustrate the loss of sovereignty and the persistence of extractive industries. It concludes by calling for the cancellation of illegitimate debts and the recognition of the Global North's historical ecological debt to the South.

The document critiques biodiversity offsets and credits as 'false solutions' that facilitate greenwashing and human rights violations while failing to restore ecosystems. It argues that these mechanisms allow companies to avoid responsibility for environmental destruction and suggests that funding for biodiversity should instead come from redirecting harmful subsidies and providing direct grants to indigenous-led initiatives.

The report critiques debt-for-nature swaps as 'green traps' that benefit creditors and international NGOs over debtor nations and local communities. It details how these mechanisms often replace old debts with new, more expensive loans, transfer territorial control to external actors, and encourage the commodification of nature. Through case studies in countries like Belize, Ecuador, and Gabon, the document illustrates the gap between promised conservation funds and actual spending, while highlighting the social costs, including the displacement of indigenous peoples. The author calls for the cancellation of illegitimate debts and the recognition of the North's ecological debt to the South.

The document critiques debt-for-nature swaps (DNS) as a 'green trap' that fails to provide real debt relief or effective conservation. It argues that these mechanisms, particularly recent market-based 'blue bonds', transfer territorial control to international NGOs and private actors, often imposing higher interest rates and restrictive conditionalities. The report highlights how sovereign debt forces Global South countries into extractivist models to generate foreign currency, and calls for the cancellation of illegitimate debts and the recognition of the North's ecological debt to the South.

The document argues that carbon markets are 'false climate solutions' designed by polluters to maintain profitable systems of capitalism and neocolonialism. It explains how carbon credits are generated through nature-based solutions (NBS) and technological fixes, which often lead to land grabbing and the violation of indigenous rights. The guide provides a framework for communities to identify 'red flags' in contracts, exercise their right to say no, and employ strategies of international solidarity to oppose the commodification of nature.

The fact sheet details the severe environmental and humanitarian impacts of the conflict in Gaza, including the destruction of water, energy, and agricultural infrastructure. It identifies specific global arms manufacturers, fossil fuel companies, and financial institutions that support the Israeli military and economy, linking these actors to both 'climate crimes' and the ongoing crisis in Palestine.