Search Climate Insights Directory

The Finance for Nature Positive (FfNP) project aims to bridge the gap in harmonized definitions and guidance for private financial institutions investing in biodiversity. Led by the Finance for Biodiversity (FfB) Foundation and WWF-US, the project will create a stakeholder-driven framework across four pillars: mainstream companies, solution providers, real assets, and sovereign debt. Key outputs include implementation materials such as case studies and country profiles for GEF-recipient countries, and a peer-reviewed scientific article. The project targets 600 beneficiaries from the finance sector and seeks to catalyze increased financial flows toward nature-positive outcomes, aligning with Target 19 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

The document argues that traditional carbon offsetting is inherently deceptive because carbon credits cannot reliably counterbalance emissions on climate-relevant timescales. It advocates for the 'beyond value chain mitigation' (BVCM) approach, where credits are treated as contributions to global climate action rather than offsets. The guide outlines principles for credible communication, including the prioritisation of internal decarbonisation and the use of transparent, non-ambiguous language. It also provides case studies of misleading claims from entities like Climate Impact Partners, Audi, and Apple, and offers recommendations for policymakers to ban offsetting claims and for consumers to identify 'red flags' in corporate communications.

The report analyzes 23 regulatory instruments from various countries to identify common features of greenwashing policy, such as the use of consumer protection laws, the role of non-binding guidance, and the necessity of scientific substantiation. It highlights a gap between high-level regulatory principles and the practical ability of smaller producers to provide verifiable data, suggesting that voluntary sustainability standards (VSSs) can bridge this gap if regulators establish clear recognition criteria.

The document advocates for legislative bans on advertising for fossil fuel-intensive goods and services, arguing that such measures are essential for demand reduction and public health. It frames the current energy crisis—caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz—as a critical window for governments to remove contradictory messaging that stimulates fossil fuel consumption while citizens are asked to reduce use.

The report argues that Africa is disproportionately vulnerable to climate change and requires substantial support from wealthier nations to transition to renewables. It suggests a gradual phasing out of fossil fuels—starting with coal, then oil, and gas beyond 2050—contrasting with more rapid shifts proposed by other bodies. Key barriers identified include the failure of initiatives like JET-Ps to raise sufficient funds, the unfunded status of the loss and damage fund, and geopolitical tensions between the US, China, and the EU. The authors advocate for a differentiated global carbon tax, the operationalization of the Global Loss and Damage Fund, and the enhancement of Africa's role as a global carbon sink to balance economic growth with climate resilience.

The document analyzes greenwashing practices, specifically focusing on H&M's 'conscious' clothing line and the carbon offsetting strategies of companies like Apple and Shell, as well as the social impacts of the Trees for Global Benefit project in Uganda.

The document outlines the climate and social risks associated with the expansion of data centers, highlighting their massive energy and water consumption. It warns journalists against uncritically accepting corporate claims about job creation and investment, urging them to investigate local resource competition, 'digital sacrifice zones,' and extractivist dynamics in the Global South.

The report details the findings of a two-part survey conducted between June and September 2025 with over 60 respondents from academia, government, and civil society. The results indicate a shift in priorities away from traditional investment protection and toward managing the negative impacts of investment and maximizing positive spillovers. While treaties are seen as useful for dispute settlement and international cooperation, national laws are overwhelmingly viewed as the most appropriate tool for addressing sustainable investment and investor accountability. The report also explores technical aspects of treaty reform, including the potential for treaties to scale up renewable energy and the preference for non-adjudicatory compliance mechanisms.

The document is a comprehensive glossary designed to bridge the communication gap between the scientific and legal communities in the context of climate litigation. It defines key terms across seven thematic areas: foundational scientific concepts, measurement and data methods, climate and environmental science, risk and impact, public health, Indigenous Knowledge, and socioeconomic policy. The guide emphasizes the distinctions between scientific and legal interpretations of terms like 'bias', 'significance', and 'uncertainty', and explains how attribution science and climate modeling can be used to establish causation and responsibility in court.

ClientEarth has issued formal warnings to major UK gas networks, boiler manufacturers, and the Energy and Utilities Alliance (EUA), alleging that they have engaged in anti-competitive conduct. The organization argues that these entities coordinated to mislead consumers about the viability of hydrogen home heating and disparaged heat pumps to maintain the dominance of gas-based heating. Additionally, ClientEarth identifies potential price-fixing agreements regarding 'hydrogen-ready' boilers and synchronized price increases in response to the Clean Heat Market Mechanism (CHMM). The document asserts that these practices distort competition, harm consumers by preventing informed choices, and obstruct the UK's climate targets.

A coalition of 133 organisations, including Reclaim Finance and WWF, argues that the European Commission's November proposal for the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) is insufficient because it limits fossil fuel exclusions to only two of the three sustainable product categories. The signatories contend that allowing any ESG-labelled funds to support fossil fuel expansion would mislead investors, contradict EU climate objectives, and undermine the credibility of the SFDR framework.

The document is an open letter signed by over 200 entities calling for COP30 in Belém to move beyond the mere recognition of climate disinformation toward mandatory, verifiable actions. It argues that coordinated disinformation campaigns, primarily funded by the fossil fuel industry and amplified by Big Tech, sabotage international cooperation and the goals of the Paris Agreement. The signatories demand that COP30 codify information integrity as a prerequisite for effective climate action and call for legislative and regulatory measures to end greenwashing and the monetization of disinformation.

The author argues that the IPBES Assessment on Businesses and Biodiversity relies on the flawed assumption that companies lack awareness of their environmental impacts. The text asserts that biodiversity destruction remains profitable, leading companies to lobby against regulations. It highlights the failure of voluntary corporate actions, noting that less than 1% of reporting companies significantly disclose biodiversity impacts. The author rejects market-based instruments like biodiversity credits and certifications as 'false solutions' and 'greenwashing,' calling instead for binding international norms and strict limits on corporate impacts to prevent ecological collapse.

The document identifies a gap in corporate climate reporting where current GHG accounting cannot credibly reflect the impact of specific mitigation interventions. To address this, the authors propose a multi-statement reporting framework that combines traditional accounting with a new 'Mitigation Intervention' statement. This framework utilizes consequential accounting to measure causal effects of interventions both inside and outside corporate value chains, supported by eligibility principles, governance, and independent verification to reduce greenwashing and encourage high-impact action.

The report argues that the AI industry uses a 'bait-and-switch' greenwashing tactic, where the proven climate benefits of 'traditional' AI (such as predictive models) are used to justify the massive energy and water consumption of 'consumer generative AI' (such as ChatGPT). An analysis of 154 climate benefit claims found that 97% related to traditional AI, while only 3% related to consumer generative AI, with no evidence found that the latter leads to substantial emissions reductions. Furthermore, the report finds that evidence for these benefits is generally weak, with 36% of claims citing no evidence and only 26% citing published academic research. This narrative masks the immediate climate impacts of data centre expansion, which the report states is boosting demand for fossil fuels and risking the ability of regions like Ireland and Australia to meet carbon targets.

The document analyzes the implications of the ICJ's advisory opinion on States' obligations to prevent environmental harm, specifically focusing on the cessation of fossil fuel subsidies and the regulation of private finance. It argues that States may commit internationally wrongful acts by continuing to fund fossil fuel production or failing to regulate private financiers. Additionally, it outlines binding obligations for developed States to provide financial assistance to developing countries for climate adaptation and mitigation under the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement. The briefing concludes by categorizing various types of climate litigation—including cases against public agencies, central banks, and private financial institutions—where these legal findings are applicable.

The document translates the ICJ's advisory opinion into practical tools for climate litigation, focusing on the 'stringent due diligence' States must exercise to regulate private actors, particularly in the fossil fuel industry. It highlights that States may be in breach of international obligations if they fail to prevent significant climate harm through the production, licensing, or subsidizing of fossil fuels. The brief also connects these findings to specific case categories, including licensing, duty to regulate, corporate frameworks, accountability for loss and damage, and greenwashing, emphasizing the 1.5°C temperature goal as a legal standard.

The report argues that fossil fuel supermajors use the voluntary carbon market (VCM) as a strategic pillar to maintain a green image while continuing carbon-intensive operations. It details how these companies and trade associations like IETA and API lobby for weaker credit quality standards and increased flexibility in offsetting Scope 3 emissions. The document specifically critiques the governance of the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) and the Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative (VCMI), alleging that the inclusion of industry representatives in decision-making roles creates significant conflicts of interest that risk diluting integrity standards.

Reclaim Finance's 2026 report reveals that 62% of analyzed unit-linked accounts (UC) in French life insurance are exposed to fossil fuel developers, despite growing saver demand for sustainable investments. The study highlights a systemic 'blind spot' where insurers apply climate policies to their general funds (fonds euro) but ignore them for UC. Specifically, 61% of UC are exposed to oil and gas developers, and 15% to thermal coal. The report also identifies significant greenwashing risks, noting that 47% of funds with 'sustainable' or 'ESG' labels still hold fossil fuel developers. It recommends that insurers stop referencing new fossil-exposed funds, demand robust climate strategies from asset managers, and calls for public authorities to implement an 'eco-score' for savings products.

The report finds that climate targets adopted by 83 global investors are largely insufficient to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the real economy, citing a lack of targets, poor quality, and limited scope. It argues that without science-based sectoral targets and regulatory oversight, these goals amount to greenwashing and fail to manage systemic climate risk.