Search Climate Insights Directory

SGR acknowledges IOM3's move to a fund excluding arms and high-carbon fossil fuels but argues that the Institute maintains insufficient transparency and continuing financial links to the fossil fuel sector. The letter demands a rapid phase-out of all ties to companies not aligned with the Paris Agreement's 2°C goal, the adoption of a formal responsible investment policy, and the reporting of the investment portfolio's carbon footprint.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) has called on the Royal Meteorological Society to phase out financial ties to the fossil fuel and arms industries. While acknowledging the Society's commitment to becoming a net zero organisation, SGR identifies critical gaps in transparency regarding investments and a lack of a formal environmental policy. The letter demands the disclosure of corporate payments over £1,000 and investments over £5,000, alongside a transition to fossil-fuel-free indexes. SGR benchmarks these demands against other professional bodies, such as the British Medical Association and the Geological Society, which have already implemented divestment or restrictive investment policies.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) has written to the Royal Society calling for the rapid phase-out of financial ties to the fossil fuel and arms industries. SGR identifies several concerns, including the acceptance of donations from these sectors and a lack of transparency regarding specific company investments. The letter outlines ten specific demands, including the use of fossil fuel-free indexes, reporting the carbon footprint of the investment portfolio, and joining the Pledge to Net Zero. SGR notes that other professional bodies, such as the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians, have already divested from fossil fuels and arms companies.

SGR acknowledges The Geological Society's recent updates to exclude arms and high-carbon emissions from its investment policy but argues that financial ties to fossil fuels persist through corporate patronage and sponsorship. The letter demands a rapid phase-out of investments in companies not aligned with the 2C Paris goal, the adoption of a formal environmental policy, and the disclosure of corporate payments over 1,000. SGR cites other UK professional bodies that have divested from fossil fuels as benchmarks for the Society's expected progress.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) has called on the Institute of Physics (IOP) to end its financial ties to the fossil fuel and arms industries. SGR identifies ongoing concerns regarding the IOP's lack of transparency in investments and its acceptance of sponsorship from arms companies. The letter demands a rapid phase-out of investments in companies whose activities are not aligned with the Paris Agreement's 2°C goal, the adoption of fossil fuel-free indexes, and the elimination of links to the military technology sector, citing examples of other professional bodies that have already divested.

The paper argues that while DFIs have focused on aligning direct project financing, they must also address 'indirect' investments via financial intermediaries to meet global climate goals. It proposes a four-pillar framework—mitigation, adaptation, governance, and transparency—implemented in two phases over a maximum of five years. The framework suggests sector-specific exclusion lists, physical climate risk screenings, institutional climate governance, and TCFD-aligned reporting. It also recommends a risk-tailored approach to investment instruments, suggesting that general purpose loans and equity be restricted to FIs already meeting alignment criteria, while special purpose vehicles (SPVs) can be used for clients committed to the principle of alignment but lacking immediate capacity.

The briefing argues that the New Bidding Law provides an opportunity to strengthen the planning of infrastructure projects by introducing more robust preliminary technical studies. It proposes a 'pre-feasibility analysis' methodology to anticipate socio-environmental risks before projects reach the bidding stage, thereby reducing the likelihood of project interruptions or environmental damage. While praising new transparency measures and the role of audit courts, the document warns that the law represents a regression in mandatory social participation.

The briefing examines the 2021 New Bidding Law in Brazil, highlighting the potential for preliminary technical studies to serve as a new planning stage. CPI/PUC-Rio proposes integrating a pre-feasibility analysis—consisting of structuring questions and socio-environmental complexity assessments—to prevent low-quality or infeasible projects from proceeding. While the law improves transparency through a single official website and expands the oversight role of legal advisory bodies and courts of accounts, the authors criticize the reduction in mandatory social participation and the potential for delays in implementing environmental licensing priorities.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the rapid operationalisation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement must not undermine environmental integrity or inclusiveness. The submission identifies several critical 'building blocks' required for the mechanism to function, including the establishment of a conflict-of-interest-free Supervisory Body, the implementation of independent grievance mechanisms, and the rigorous review of methodologies regarding additionality and permanence. It further advocates for an automatic partial cancellation of units to ensure overall mitigation in global emissions and the creation of proactive stakeholder notification systems to improve transparency beyond simple document availability.

The submission argues that the UNCITRAL Working Group III's draft work plan must better facilitate the participation of developing states and ensure the inclusion of critical cross-cutting issues in ISDS reform. The authors propose moving to an opt-out participation model for intersessional work, providing translation services for non-English speaking delegations, and increasing transparency regarding drafting processes and expert roles. Additionally, they call for the explicit inclusion of cross-cutting issues—such as regulatory chill, exhaustion of local remedies, and the calculation of damages—which they claim have been notably absent from recent agendas and working papers.

The text compares 'Say on Climate' initiatives—where companies submit their own strategies for shareholder votes—with shareholder-led climate resolutions. It argues that for companies like Total SE, 'Say on Climate' can act as a 'distraction' or 'diversion' that allows management to legitimize 'watered down' or 'incrementalist' strategies. The author contends that only shareholder-led resolutions allow investors to 'define the terms of debate' and push for strategies compatible with viable climate trajectories, citing the 2020 resolution at Total SE as a positive example.

The Climate Social Science Network (CSSN) identifies key risks associated with advancing solar geoengineering research in the U.S., focusing on the potential for 'mitigation deterrence' where such research might reduce the urgency of decarbonization. The document questions the lack of social justice considerations, the influence of fossil fuel interests, and the absence of international governance frameworks. It also highlights the risks of overreliance on climate models and the potential for the militarization of geoengineering technologies.

The document supports a European Parliament proposal to grant the public and NGOs the right to challenge the legality of national climate plans (NECPs and LTSs) in court. It argues that such a provision is necessary to ensure equal protection across EU Member States and is consistent with existing EU environmental law, the Aarhus Convention, and the right to an effective remedy.

The report urges Canada to dramatically increase public investment in climate adaptation, establish a coordinated governance approach across all levels of government, and enhance the transparency of economic and social climate risks to better inform investment and planning decisions.

The report traces the shift in international climate policy from the 'top-down' prescriptive approach of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which targeted developed nations, to the 'bottom-up' participatory model of the 2015 Paris Agreement. It highlights the central role of the 'common but differentiated responsibilities' (CBDR) principle and argues that while the Paris Agreement achieved universal participation, current national commitments remain insufficient to limit global warming to 1.5°C or 2°C.

The report argues that a well-designed climate accountability framework can increase government transparency and coordination across different levels of government to meet 2030 and 2050 targets. Based on international and domestic case studies, it identifies six common elements of such frameworks and proposes a national Canadian model that balances federal leadership with subnational flexibility.

The fact sheet details key components of effective climate accountability frameworks, emphasizing the need for legislated governance structures, independent oversight, and the use of cumulative carbon budgets to track progress toward long-term goals.

Nigeria’s National Adaptation Plan (NAP) Framework establishes a coordinated, sectoral approach to building climate resilience. It outlines an institutional structure led by the Department of Climate Change, emphasizing gender-responsiveness, youth engagement, and the integration of indigenous knowledge. The framework aims to align adaptation efforts with national development plans like the Economic Recovery and Growth Plan and international commitments under the UNFCCC's Cancun Adaptation Framework, while identifying pathways for domestic and international climate finance.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) emphasizes that while solar geoengineering (SG) cannot substitute for emissions reductions, the potential for atmospheric experiments requires robust, transparent, and inclusive public engagement. The brief outlines the risks of SG, such as 'termination shock' and 'moral hazard,' and provides a framework for engagement levels—ranging from informing to empowering—to ensure that research is conducted with societal legitimacy and ethical oversight.

The UK's Climate Change Act 2008 established a legally-binding framework for emissions reductions, featuring long-term targets, five-year carbon budgets, and independent oversight by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC). While the UK successfully met its first two carbon budgets and reduced emissions by 44% below 1990 levels by 2018, it is currently not on track to meet its fourth and fifth budgets or its net-zero target. The legislation is noted for its political durability across different governments and its inclusion of climate adaptation governance, though it faces potential challenges from Brexit and the need to decarbonize more difficult economic sectors.