Search Climate Insights Directory

The document advocates for the European Union to lead the 'Mission 2020' initiative, which aims to bend the global emissions curve by 2020 to stay within the 2-degree Celsius limit of the Paris Agreement. It argues that the EU can use its existing institutional frameworks, specifically regional cohesion and structural funds, to support a just transition toward low-carbon economies. The text emphasizes a shift from centralized energy production to decentralized, community-based renewable energy systems to empower local actors and counteract populist movements. It cites historical industrial transitions in regions like the Ruhr Area as evidence that such structural changes can be managed. Additionally, it highlights the role of bottom-up movements, such as the Transition Town Movement and the fossil fuel divestment movement, in driving decarbonization.

The document advocates for a managed decline in global fossil fuel production to meet Paris Agreement goals, suggesting that supply-side policies complement demand-side efforts to reduce emissions and carbon lock-in. It proposes using NDCs, long-term strategies, and a global stocktake to track production phase-downs while ensuring a just transition for affected workers and economies.

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 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 is a statement by environmental organizations opposing amendments to California Senate Bill 488. These amendments seek to limit the California Insurance Commissioner's ability to issue data calls, specifically targeting the Climate Risk Carbon Initiative. Launched in January 2016, this initiative requires insurers with over $100 million in annual premiums to disclose investments in coal, oil, and natural gas, while encouraging voluntary divestment from thermal coal. The authors argue that such disclosures are essential for financial stability and transparency, citing risks of stranded assets and the necessity of accounting for carbon transition risk to protect institutional investors and fiduciaries.

A coalition of environmental and advocacy organizations opposes an amendment to California SB 488 that would limit the Insurance Commissioner's ability to conduct data calls and surveys. The authors argue that restricting this authority, specifically the provision limiting data calls to activity within California, would undermine the state's ability to monitor material financial risks associated with climate change and the transition to a low-carbon economy, effectively ending initiatives like the Climate Risk Carbon Initiative.

The document asserts that the Paris Agreement is a universal and flexible framework essential for stabilizing global temperature increases below 2°C. It characterizes the U.S. decision to withdraw as an "historical mistake" that could increase future global temperature rises by up to 0.3°C and isolate the U.S. internationally. However, the authors note that a "domino effect" of other nations withdrawing has not occurred, as key players like China, the European Union, and India remain committed. The text highlights that the transition to clean energy is driven by economic opportunity, noting support from major U.S. companies, the divestment from coal by Blackrock, and the competitiveness of renewables, exemplified by subsidy-free auctions in Spain. Internal U.S. opposition is also noted, specifically from the governors of California, New York, and Washington.

The authors assert that the Paris Agreement's universal and flexible design allows it to persist despite the United States' withdrawal. While the US exit is described as a historical mistake that could increase global temperatures by up to 0.3°C, the authors note that key players like China, the EU, and India remain committed. They highlight that the transition to clean energy is driven by economic opportunities, with major US companies and financial institutions like Blackrock divesting from fossil fuels and supporting the agreement for the sake of stability. Additionally, internal US opposition from governors in California, New York, and Washington suggests a continued domestic effort to reduce emissions.

The author contends that climate change acts as a 'threat multiplier' that exacerbates global instability, migration, and conflict, yet remains absent from public debate. The text proposes that the EU shift toward a 'geographic climate security policy'—modeled on UNEP's analysis of the Sahel—which assesses how climate factors intersect with political and security risks in specific territories. To implement this, the Greens suggest creating an EU Special Representative on Climate Security, mainstreaming climate security across all external policy funds, and reducing European dependency on fossil fuel imports from autocratic states to limit their ability to finance aggression.

A coalition of civil society organizations requests that the Green Climate Fund (GCF) maintain its fossil fuel-free status by establishing a formal investment policy consistent with ESG standards and the Paris Agreement. The signatories argue that investing in high-carbon sectors poses systemic financial and reputational risks and call for the GCF to require any candidate for Permanent Trustee to commit to an ethical, fossil-free asset management strategy.

The document examines the multifaceted nature of security in Europe, contrasting the 'politics of fear' used by national populists with a progressive vision of security. It analyzes threats ranging from terrorism and digital vulnerabilities to energy insecurity and climate change, while emphasizing that social investment and the protection of civil liberties are more effective tools for stability than mass surveillance or militarisation. The text specifically critiques the 'securitisation' of migration and the role of the state in managing perceived risks.

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 examines the transition of sustainable investing from a fringe approach to the mainstream among US institutional investors. It identifies key drivers such as the financial materiality of ESG factors, supportive policy frameworks like the Paris Agreement, and a desire for mission alignment. The paper categorizes sustainable investing into five main strategies: negative screens, positive screens, ESG integration, impact investing, and shareholder engagement. Despite growth, the authors identify significant systemic barriers, including short-term performance biases, inadequate ESG data and disclosure standards, and a lack of institutional-quality sustainable investment products. The paper concludes with recommendations for asset owners to build internal capacity and for market actors to provide more actionable frameworks and improved data.

The report evaluates the climate risk disclosure practices of several major fossil fuel companies, including Arch Coal, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, CONSOL Energy, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy, and Royal Dutch Shell. It scores companies across four categories: regulatory risks, physical risks, market/indirect risks, and corporate governance. While most companies provide detailed analysis of regulatory risks, the report finds widespread failures in disclosing the specific role of climate change in physical risks and a near-total absence of disclosure regarding corporate governance on climate issues.

The document outlines the growing demand for sustainable finance professionals to facilitate the transition to a sustainable economy. It identifies diverse career paths in the public sector (multilateral development banks, green banks), the private sector (consulting, financial institutions, clean tech), and NGOs (foundations, thought leadership organizations). It notes that while finance backgrounds are advantageous, the field welcomes professionals from law, policy, and management, and highlights recent initiatives like the Breakthrough Energy Coalition and the Catalytic Finance Initiative as evidence of the sector's growth.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) has issued an open letter to Anglo American following the company's February 2016 announcement to sell its South African coal and iron ore assets. The CER warns against a trend where large mining firms sell assets with significant environmental liabilities to smaller companies that subsequently go insolvent, leaving the state and public to bear the cost of rehabilitation. Citing cases like Harmony Gold and DRDGold, the CER argues that the transfer of mining rights constitutes administrative action requiring public participation under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA). The letter demands that Anglo American publicly disclose its intended transfers, Environmental Management Programmes, and financial provisions for rehabilitation to avoid adding to the 6,000 derelict and ownerless mines already existing in South Africa.

The document examines the tension between treating fossil fuel suppliers as polluters and recognizing extraction as a sovereign right for development. It argues that meeting Paris Agreement targets requires leaving a majority of proven reserves in the ground, which would disproportionately impact lower-income regions through the loss of significant resource rents.

The document is a declaration calling for the end of fossil fuel exploration and extraction to address the climate crisis and mass extinction. It demands a just transition to a democratized, 100% renewable energy system, the removal of fossil fuel industry influence from policymaking, and the recognition of the rights of Indigenous and frontline communities.

The research paper argues that climate policy has historically over-emphasized demand-side measures, such as carbon pricing and energy efficiency, while neglecting the supply side of the fossil fuel economy. The authors identify three primary barriers to supply-side action: political opposition from powerful fossil fuel interests, territorial GHG accounting rules that under-credit supply-side reductions, and a common perception that restricting production merely causes 'leakage' to other regions. The paper proposes a typology of supply-side policies, including producer subsidy reform, conservation payments for leaving reserves undeveloped, and ring-fenced cap-and-trade systems for production rights. It suggests that integrating supply-side measures can widen the mitigation cost curve, reducing the cost of achieving emission targets and mitigating 'carbon lock-in' and 'stranded-asset' risks. The authors highlight the case of Norway, where a combined supply-demand strategy could potentially achieve global emission reductions at one-third the cost of a demand-only approach.

The report defines climate exposure as potential portfolio gains or losses due to climate change, categorized into policy, physical, and market exposures. It analyzes the role of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) data as the primary information source for investors, while highlighting significant limitations in data quality and the prevalence of voluntary disclosure. The document evaluates various management tools, including ESG data aggregators and financial products such as exclusionary, non-exclusionary, and thematic indexes, as well as green bonds and YieldCos. It concludes that current tools are skewed toward risk mitigation rather than opportunity identification and recommends mandatory standardized disclosure to improve comparability and effectiveness.