Search Climate Insights Directory

The document discusses the role of government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in addressing the high energy costs faced by 35 million low- to moderate-income (LMI) households in the US. Under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, these GSEs have a 'Duty to Serve' underserved markets. With advocacy from the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), the GSEs have incorporated energy and water conservation into their 2018-2020 action plans. Key initiatives include Freddie Mac's study on the impact of energy efficiency on loan performance and home valuations, and Fannie Mae's updates to its HomeStyle® Energy product to allow for energy improvements and disaster resilience upgrades.

ClientEarth acknowledges Lloyd's decision to divest the Central Fund from companies heavily associated with coal starting 1 April 2018, but argues that this represents only 2.5% of the total assets in the 'Chain of Security'. The organization contends that coal-related stranded asset risks increase the likelihood of insolvency and property and casualty claims, thereby threatening the broader market's solvency. ClientEarth proposes that Lloyd's modify its Minimum Standards to require stress testing for coal risks, adopt the Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) Recommendations as industry best practice, and mandate the use of peer-reviewed climate science in risk evaluations.

The statement opposes the Trump administration's proposal to open U.S. ocean waters, including areas off the California coast, to offshore oil and gas drilling. It highlights the environmental and economic risks, citing the Deepwater Horizon disaster as a precedent for potential catastrophe. The text advocates for the passage of California state legislation that would block the development of new fossil fuel infrastructure, such as pipelines, on coastal lands under the State Lands Commission's authority to effectively halt the expansion of drilling.

The report finds a significant gap in how UK contract-based pension providers manage climate risk compared to trust-based schemes, urging the FCA to implement mandatory reporting and guidance.

The document argues that climate change is a material financial risk that UK auditors must integrate into their work to avoid legal and regulatory sanctions. It details how climate risk affects annual accounts (e.g., asset impairments) and other reporting (e.g., strategic reports), noting that auditors may be liable for 'material misstatements' or breaches of their duty of care. The paper highlights rising investor pressure for 'climate-competent auditors' and provides action points for firms to manage these risks.

The document argues that climate change creates material financial risks that UK defined benefit (DB) pension trustees are legally required to manage. Consequently, investment consultants may face legal liability, regulatory sanctions, and reputational damage if they fail to provide advice that accounts for these risks in areas such as Statements of Investment Principles (SIP), asset allocation, and manager selection. It highlights an emerging industry standard where failure to address climate risk could be viewed as a breach of the duty of care.

The document argues that climate risk is now a financially material factor that UK DB pension actuaries must address to avoid legal negligence claims, regulatory sanctions, and professional misconduct findings. It details how climate risk impacts investment strategies, funding assumptions, and employer covenants, and provides a framework for actuaries to manage these liabilities.

The Risk, Remittances and Integrity (RRI) programme is a five-year partnership between FSD Africa and Cenfri aimed at strengthening the financial sector in sub-Saharan Africa. The programme operates through three primary streams: Risk Management, which focuses on developing inclusive insurance markets; Remittances, which seeks to reduce costs and increase the flow of funds for resilience and investment; and Integrity, which addresses illicit financial flows and the impact of AML/CFT regulations on financial inclusion.

The FRC is criticized for an 'oversight and enforcement gap' regarding climate-related financial risk, evidenced by its handling of complaints against oil and gas companies and its resistance to TCFD recommendations. These failures are compounded by structural weaknesses in the FRC's governance, transparency, and accountability, including a lack of a clear legislative basis and limited accountability to Parliament and the public.

The World Resources Institute urges the U.S. government to support the TCFD's voluntary climate-risk disclosure framework at the 2017 G20 Summit. The author contends that climate change poses material financial risks—citing potential GDP losses and operational shutdowns—and that a consistent reporting framework is necessary to prevent capital losses and disorderly asset price changes. The document highlights strong support for these guidelines from major U.S. corporations and institutional investors, arguing that U.S. endorsement ensures the country helps shape a private-sector-led regime rather than being subject to foreign mandates.

ClientEarth has alerted Glencore and its investors to potential legal risks arising from the company's 2016 corporate reporting. The organization contends that Glencore's assertions—specifically that its coal assets will not become stranded and that demand will continue to grow—ignore critical market trends and independent analyses. ClientEarth highlights that the omission of disruptive factors, such as the rise of renewables and peaking demand in China, could be viewed as reckless or fraudulent under the UK's Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, potentially granting shareholders the right to claim compensation for losses.

ClientEarth asserts that BP's 'base case' oil demand forecast to 2035 is at odds with independent analysis and automotive industry trends, potentially misleading investors and exposing BP to compensation claims under UK law.

ClientEarth urges the UK government to extend mandatory Adaptation Reporting Power (ARP3) reporting to all major financial regulators, including the FCA, FRC, tPR, and PPF, alongside the PRA. The document highlights that while the PRA previously reported on the insurance sector in 2015, systemic climate risks—including physical, transition, and liability risks—remain poorly understood across other financial sectors such as banking and pensions. It emphasizes the urgency of the 2017-2018 reporting cycle to prevent a five-year delay in addressing these vulnerabilities.

The document argues that many LGPS funds are failing their fiduciary duties by ignoring climate risk or incorrectly delegating its management. It identifies five misconceptions: that climate change is not a financial risk, that delegation to managers is sufficient, that delegation to the LAPFF is sufficient, that pooling removes the need for fund-level consideration, and that taxpayers bear all the risk. The authors request that TPR investigate these issues, issue guidance, and engage with Defra for an Adaptation Report.

The 2017 Green Economy Barometer reports a dual reality: while renewable energy capacity is growing and green technologies are hitting mass markets, the 'brown economy' remains dominant, biodiversity is in crisis, and financial systems continue to subsidise fossil fuels. The document argues that the transition is gathering speed but risks failure if it does not address the needs of rural economies, informal workers, and the youth unemployment crisis.

The region at the base of the Himalayas is experiencing extreme climate volatility, with record-setting floods and severe droughts disrupting both water and energy security. India's power grid relies heavily on water-intensive coal and hydropower, leading to chronic electricity shortages when water is scarce and infrastructure damage during floods. These challenges have triggered rural-to-urban migration, civil unrest, and farmer suicides. To mitigate these risks, the document recommends that India shift toward wind and solar energy and suggests the U.S. provide financial and technical support through initiatives like the U.S.-India Clean Energy Finance Scheme.

Pakistan faces a severe water security crisis driven by its reliance on transboundary freshwater sources, climate change, and poor management, with predictions of absolute water scarcity by 2025. This insecurity manifests as declining agricultural productivity, public health crises due to contaminated water, and social unrest in cities like Karachi. The document highlights that these vulnerabilities, alongside tensions with India over the Indus Basin Water Treaty, create fertile ground for insurgency and instability, thereby increasing risks to U.S. foreign policy and security interests. It recommends that the U.S. provide technical support for groundwater monitoring, facilitate water pricing systems, and promote soft engineering solutions like wetlands.

The report examines the intersection of climate change and fiduciary duty for public pension fund trustees. It identifies four primary financial risks—physical impact, carbon asset, transition, and litigation—and argues that these risks necessitate the exercise of duties to inquire, monitor, diversify, and act impartially. The document suggests that failure to account for these risks may lead to lawsuits for breach of fiduciary duty, particularly regarding the interests of future beneficiaries. Recommended actions include modifying investment principles, divesting from climate-vulnerable assets, active shareholder engagement, and investing in clean energy.

The document outlines a legal opinion stating that UK pension fund trustees must account for climate risks in investment decisions if those risks are financially material, warning that failure to do so could lead to legal challenges.

The document concludes that pension fund trustees are legally obliged to take climate change into account if it presents a material financial risk to the fund's performance. While trustees must generally prioritise the best financial interests of beneficiaries over moral or ethical concerns, any factor—including environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors—that is financially material must be considered. The opinion argues that trustees who refuse to assess whether climate change is financially material may be open to legal challenge.