Search Climate Insights Directory

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) has called on the Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE) to reform its financial practices, citing a lack of transparency and continued ties to fossil fuel and arms industries. SGR demands that IChemE disclose investments over £3,500, phase out ties to companies not aligned with the 2°C Paris Agreement goal, and adopt fossil fuel-free indexes. The letter highlights a broader trend of divestment among other professional bodies, universities, and medical organisations in the UK and US as a benchmark for responsible climate governance.

The Canadian Climate Institute outlines a framework for Canada's Emissions Reduction Plans based on the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. The framework consists of three core elements: establishing emissions pathways consistent with net zero, implementing policies that credibly reduce emissions, and creating responsive governance processes for course correction. The report provides illustrative sectoral pathways for 2026 and 2030, noting that the oil and gas sector exhibits the greatest variability and risk, while the electricity sector is well-positioned to meet targets. It emphasizes that reaching net zero will require sustained policy effort and a shift from historical emissions growth to strong annual declines in sectors such as buildings and transportation.

The Canadian Climate Institute outlines a three-pillar framework for Canada's emission reduction plans: establishing net-zero aligned emission trajectories, implementing credible policies with concrete measures, and creating responsive governance processes for continuous improvement. The report emphasizes the need for transparent modeling, sector-specific trajectories, and independent annual monitoring to fill gaps in the current legislative framework. It includes modeling for various sectors, noting that the oil and gas sector exhibits the highest variability and significantly influences the emissions budget for other sectors.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) has called on the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) to address concerns regarding its lack of transparency and potential financial ties to the fossil fuel and arms industries. SGR requests that ASEE disclose investments over $5,000, phase out ties to companies not aligned with the 2°C Paris Agreement goal, and adopt a formal environmental policy. The letter highlights a broader trend of divestment among other professional bodies and universities in the US and UK, such as the American Geophysical Union and Harvard University, as evidence of shifting expectations for climate governance.

The document provides a detailed guide on the rights of individuals and NGOs to participate in environmental decision-making in the UK, primarily through the framework of the Aarhus Convention. It outlines the specific requirements for three types of decisions: specific activities (Article 6), plans and policies (Article 7), and legislation (Article 8). The guide also discusses domestic UK consultation standards, such as the Sedley/Gunning principles and Cabinet Office Consultation principles, and provides advice on challenging deficient consultations through judicial review or the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee.

The document outlines the requirements for public participation in environmental matters in the UK, focusing on the three pillars of the Aarhus Convention: access to information, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice. It details the specific obligations for public authorities regarding activities, plans, and legislation that significantly affect the environment. Additionally, it explains domestic standards for fair consultation, including the Sedley/Gunning principles and Cabinet Office Consultation principles, and provides guidance on challenging deficient consultations through judicial review or the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee.

The report analyzes the links between 'Big Polluters' and three major net-zero initiatives: the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market, the High-Level Expert Group (HLEG) on Net-Zero Commitments of Non-State Entities, and the Race to Zero. It argues that these initiatives are compromised by leaders and advisors with deep ties to the fossil fuel industry, allowing companies to 'greenwash' their business models while continuing to finance fossil fuel expansion. The document highlights specific instances where financial institutions and corporate executives within these bodies have a history of funding fossil fuels or opposing environmental justice, thereby questioning the credibility of the standards and guidelines these bodies produce.

The report analyzes the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM), the UN High-Level Expert Group (HLEG), and the 'Race to Zero' alliance, asserting that these bodies are compromised by ties to the fossil fuel industry. It details how board members and advisors have professional links to companies like ExxonMobil, Shell, and BP, or financial institutions that continue to fund fossil fuel expansion. The document argues that these connections allow polluters to use 'net zero' frameworks as a tool for greenwashing and to avoid regulations that would require actual emission reductions at the source.

The document argues that climate change acts as a 'threat multiplier' in Africa, where risks are amplified by existing governance deficits and poor development. It emphasizes that while climate-driven scarcity can fuel conflict, causality is complex and depends on political and historical contexts. The authors advocate for integrating climate action into the broader development agenda, transitioning from a narrative of vulnerability to one of economic opportunity through renewable energy and climate-resilient infrastructure. Key recommendations include strengthening the evidence base for climate security, increasing climate finance flows, and expanding climate diplomacy beyond the UNFCCC to platforms like the G20 and the African Continental Free Trade Area Agreement.

The document advocates for a whole-of-government approach to climate change in Canada to ensure coherent policy implementation across diverse departments. Based on a survey of eight countries and in-depth analysis of the United Kingdom, the United States, and British Columbia, the report outlines five essential requirements for success: sustained executive leadership, adequate funding and mandates, empowered personnel, aligned departmental mandates, and public transparency.

The report examines 'whole-of-government' approaches to climate change, emphasizing the need for central leadership, clear mandates, and transparency to overcome ministerial silos. Through case studies of the UK, US, and British Columbia, it highlights that while such approaches can foster collaboration, they are often fragile and dependent on the political will of the head of government. The author recommends that Canada establish a dedicated Cabinet committee and a central coordination secretariat to integrate climate considerations across all public policies.

The document advocates for a 'whole-of-government' approach to climate change in Canada, defined as the use of governance structures (like cabinet committees) and processes (like mandate letters) to coordinate action across departmental silos. Through case studies of the UK, US, and British Columbia, it identifies that success depends on sustained executive leadership, adequate resources, and empowered personnel. It warns that such structures are fragile and can be easily dismantled by changes in government. For Canada, the brief recommends establishing a Prime Minister-chaired Cabinet Committee on Climate Change and Net Zero, supported by a high-level coordinating Secretariat in the Privy Council or Prime Minister's Office.

The report examines how the TCU has evolved into a primary instance for the preventive control of socio-environmental risks in federal transport infrastructure concessions. While the TCU provides critical oversight to mitigate risks and ensure legal security, its intervention often occurs too late in the project lifecycle. This tardiness is attributed to a lack of motivated and transparent approval of Technical, Economic, and Environmental Viability Studies (EVTEA) by the Executive branch at the start of the viability phase. The document analyzes four case studies—BR-163/230/MT/PA, the North-South Railway (FNSTC), the Southern Integration Highway (RIS), and Ferrogrão—to illustrate the tensions between the TCU's oversight and the Executive's discretionary power, as well as the systemic failures in viability study quality, often exacerbated by the use of Manifestation of Interest (PMI) procedures.

The document examines the opportunities and barriers to moving UNFCCC climate negotiations online. While digital tools could disrupt outdated and opaque practices, the transition is hindered by a lack of trust among Parties and concerns that virtual formats might exacerbate structural inequities or reduce transparency for media and NGOs. The author recommends the creation of a taskforce to design future session formats and calls for leadership from the UN Secretary-General and the UNFCCC Secretariat to modernize multilateral diplomacy.

The document argues that the effectiveness of National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) depends on vertical integration, which links sub-national authorities, local organizations, and citizens with national decision-makers to ensure inclusivity and representation in climate adaptation efforts.

The Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) proposes a certification framework to ensure company decarbonisation is rapid and robust enough to align with the Paris Agreement. The proposal introduces five 'hallmarks' of a credibly transitioning company: Paris-aligned targets, robust plans, implementation action, internal monitoring, and external reporting. This framework aims to bridge the gap between light-touch market guidance and overly complex entity-level assessments. CBI suggests differentiating between 'Green Transition' (already aligned with sectoral pathways) and 'Interim Transition' (catching up, with a proposed grace period until 2025). The framework emphasizes absolute measures tied to common sectoral transition pathways over relative 'best-in-class' benchmarking and requires the inclusion of scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions.

The document examines the political challenges hindering the coordination of climate finance, focusing on the relationship between the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) and the Green Climate Fund (GCF). It highlights how divergent governance structures, domestic bureaucratic politics in recipient countries, and fragmented development coordination frameworks create inefficiencies. Using examples from Kenya and Zambia, it illustrates the tension between different government ministries over who should lead climate finance coordination. The brief recommends that contributor governments provide more consistent guidance and that the UNFCCC Standing Committee on Finance helps clarify the organizational strengths and roles of various funds.

The document argues that the choice of corruption definition—whether focusing on individual abuse of power or systemic institutional failure—fundamentally shapes the anti-corruption responses practitioners implement. It contrasts the 'principal-agent' theory, which emphasizes individual control and punishment, with 'collective action' approaches that address underlying social norms and trust. The author emphasizes that practitioners must account for their own 'positionality' and incorporate local knowledge, particularly in non-Western contexts, to develop effective remedies for corruption in natural resource sectors.

The Canadian Climate Institute highlights the importance of Bill C-12, which legally enshrines Canada's net-zero goal for 2050 and establishes accountability structures. The author emphasizes that the federal government must now develop a detailed emissions reduction plan for 2030, including a 2026 interim target, focusing on energy efficiency and clean electricity. The document calls for collaboration between federal, provincial, and Indigenous governments, as well as the private sector, to ensure the 2030 targets are met.

The document argues that development finance institutions (DFIs) cannot achieve full alignment with the Paris Agreement if they only focus on direct project financing, as substantial portions of their finance are channeled through financial intermediaries. It proposes a phased alignment strategy combining subproject-level criteria for mitigation and adaptation with institutional-level requirements for climate governance and transparency.