Search Climate Insights Directory

The report examines why China's coal power capacity continued to grow between 2016 and 2020 despite decarbonization goals, citing both surface-level needs (supply security, heating) and deep-seated drivers (local government enthusiasm, rigid dispatch mechanisms). It argues that coal power must transition into a 'supportive role' providing flexibility and backup for wind and solar. To achieve this, the authors suggest four policy entry points: breaking path dependency by curbing local government enthusiasm, reforming electricity markets to incentivize flexibility, coordinating coal and electricity policies to ensure supply security, and adopting a reflexive, inclusive governance model.

The report finds that India's energy budgeting remains heavily skewed toward fossil fuels, with subsidies for coal, oil, and gas being nine times larger than those for clean energy in FY 2021. While fossil fuel subsidies have fallen 72% since 2014, public sector undertakings (PSUs) and public finance institutions (PFIs) continue to provide substantial support to fossil projects, often lacking clear net-zero roadmaps. The analysis reveals a stark gap between revenue and social costs: conservative externalities for fossil fuels in FY 2020 (INR 1,441,464 crore) were more than double the revenues generated (INR 6,52,564 crore). The authors recommend phasing out fossil fuel support, diversifying PSU investments, and using strategic taxation to fund a just transition and clean energy infrastructure.

The report highlights that animal welfare is largely absent from sustainable development governance, despite evidence that current animal treatment hinders the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals. It identifies critical links between industrial livestock farming and public health threats like antimicrobial resistance and zoonoses, as well as environmental degradation. The authors propose three pathways for mainstreaming: incorporating animal welfare into international legal instruments, adopting national policies to support sustainable practices (including economic and regulatory tools), and enhancing knowledge, capacity, and representation for animals.

The document examines the dimensions of a just energy transition, moving beyond the focus on fossil fuel workers to address the impacts of clean energy deployment. It identifies five types of energy justice—distributive, procedural, recognition, restorative, and cosmopolitan—and emphasizes the necessity of respecting human rights across the entire clean energy supply chain. The briefing highlights risks associated with critical mineral extraction and land use, providing case studies from Colombia and Scandinavia. It concludes that international cooperation and robust regulatory frameworks are essential to ensure that the benefits and costs of the transition are shared equitably without exacerbating existing inequalities.

The paper examines the dimensions of a just and equitable energy transition, moving beyond the impacts on fossil fuel-dependent workers to analyze the risks associated with clean energy supply chains. It identifies five forms of justice—distributional, procedural, recognition, restorative, and cosmopolitan—and emphasizes the necessity of respecting human rights, particularly for Indigenous peoples, throughout the energy lifecycle. The authors highlight the risks of human rights violations in critical mineral extraction and the potential for 'green' projects to cause displacement. They advocate for community benefit-sharing, quality job creation, and international cooperation to ensure that the economic benefits of the transition do not exacerbate existing inequalities.

The paper argues that developing countries lack the financial sector capacity to fund the scale of investment required for low-carbon transitions. It distinguishes between 'commercially viable technologies' that need scaled-up investment and 'financially underserved technologies' that require de-risking. Proposed solutions include the creation of a Global Clean Investment Risk Mitigation Mechanism (GCI-RMM), the implementation of sustainable taxonomies and corporate disclosures, and the use of carbon pricing. The authors emphasize that multilateral cooperation is essential to harmonize these regulations and increase grant-based concessional finance to catalyze private investment.

The document introduces the 'provisioning systems' framework as a tool to analyze how human needs are met without exceeding planetary boundaries. It argues that simple policy tools like carbon pricing are insufficient because they ignore the systemic interdependencies between material stocks, techniques, and institutional elements (households, markets, the commons, and the state). Through examples of cellphone charging and mobility (road vs. air transport), the authors demonstrate how different techno-economic paradigms create different barriers to decarbonization. The paper concludes that transformative change requires multi-scalar, reflexive governance and policy portfolios that address systemic lock-ins and ensure a just transition for both producers and consumers.

The document examines the failure of existing multilateral systems to address global-scale chronic risks, such as the climate crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic. It highlights the stark disparity in climate-related deaths and GDP losses between high-income and low-income groups, noting that the Global North bears significant historical responsibility for emissions while the Global South suffers the most severe consequences. The authors propose 'de minimis multilateralism'—focusing on common aversions—and the creation of a Global Resilience Reserve Fund and a Climate Risk Atlas for Developing Countries to enhance human security and financial resilience.

The report examines the global and regional context of oil and gas transitions, focusing on the North Sea region. It identifies a significant 'ambition gap' between national net-zero targets and actual industrial strategies in the UK and Norway, while noting Denmark as a first-mover with a 2050 phase-out date. Using a scorecard analysis based on seven just transition principles, the report finds that while Scotland leads in support for workers and communities, the UK and Norway struggle with carbon lock-in due to continued licensing and a lack of comprehensive regional support policies.

The document argues for stronger international coordination to manage the environmental and social footprints of global supply chains, moving beyond voluntary commitments toward mandatory due diligence and standardized verification. It emphasizes the necessity of integrating 'decent work' into green economy policies to ensure a just transition, noting that environmental policies often lack social equity. Additionally, it addresses the dual nature of digitalization, which can enhance efficiency but also significantly increase energy consumption and emissions, calling for global governance on 'green artificial intelligence' and standardized environmental footprint methodologies.

The document argues that while Aid for Trade (AfT) is a vital tool for sustainable development, there is a significant mismatch between the low levels of development assistance for plastic pollution and the high financial flows to the petrochemical sector. It identifies specific capacity-building needs for developing countries—such as circular economy strategies, technology access, and regulatory frameworks—and proposes short- and medium-term deliverables for WTO members to integrate plastic pollution priorities into AfT work programmes.

The document highlights a contradiction between Indonesia's commitment to the Global Methane Pledge and the World Bank's Country Partnership Framework (CPF) 2021-24, which supports the acceleration of natural gas and biogas deployment. It warns that gas infrastructure projects, including power stations and LNG terminals, will increase greenhouse gas emissions. The author urges the redirection of finance away from fossil gas and unproven technologies like CCUS toward renewable energy, grid modernisation, and a just transition from coal.

RMI advocates for a comprehensive transformation of the global economy across ten key fronts to meet the 1.5C climate target. These priorities include increasing political ambition, decarbonizing buildings and transportation, phasing out coal and gas, scaling green hydrogen, and enhancing emissions transparency. The organization emphasizes the need for a three- to six-fold increase in zero-carbon capital investments and the integration of mitigation and adaptation efforts, particularly in the Global South, to ensure an equitable transition.

Climate researcher Julia Steinberger asserts that the latest IPCC report confirms that tackling fossil fuel production is essential to limiting global warming to 1.5C. She argues that current international frameworks, including the Paris Agreement, are insufficient because they do not explicitly address the production of coal, oil, and gas. To remedy this, she advocates for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, a binding global agreement designed to coordinate an equitable phase-out of fossil fuels. The author also links the dependence on fossil fuels to the conflict in Ukraine, suggesting that a transition to renewable energy is necessary for both climate stability and global peace.

Carbon Market Watch outlines recommendations for the EU ETS II, emphasizing that emission allowances should be auctioned rather than allocated for free to ensure the 'polluter pays' principle. The author argues that the estimated annual average revenue of €47 billion (2026-2030) should be recycled into socially fair compensation schemes for energy efficiency and renewable energy to protect low-income households. Additionally, the document asserts that carbon pricing must be complemented by regulatory frameworks, such as vehicle emission standards and energy performance requirements for buildings, as pricing alone is insufficient to drive full decarbonization.

The report examines how COP26 outcomes, such as pledges to end deforestation and phase out fossil fuel vehicles, drive demand for critical minerals in Africa. It emphasizes that while the energy transition offers economic opportunities, mining companies must adopt ESG frameworks and UN Sustainable Development Goals to ensure a 'just decarbonisation process' and avoid community conflict. The document highlights the challenge of scope 3 emissions and recommends that African governments create incentive platforms for decarbonisation.

The report outlines critical research needs across natural sciences, social sciences, and legal analysis to support climate litigation. Key gaps include the need for localized attribution science, investigations into corporate disinformation and internal knowledge (including non-fossil fuel industries), and the quantification of economic damages. It also emphasizes the necessity of 'translational work' to bridge the communication gap between scientists, legal practitioners, and judges, particularly regarding legally relevant timeframes and standards of evidence.

Global Witness argues that the EU's proposed Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive risks becoming a 'box-ticking exercise' unless it is strengthened. The briefing recommends establishing a clear 'duty to prevent' harm, mandating ongoing and outcome-oriented due diligence, and ensuring meaningful stakeholder engagement, particularly for human rights and environmental defenders. It calls for the inclusion of mandatory climate due diligence aligned with the Paris Agreement, the removal of exemptions for financial institutions, and the reduction of legal barriers to justice for victims of corporate abuse.

The briefing analyzes 1,047 energy policies adopted between January 2020 and November 2021, finding that most governments prioritize short-term poverty reduction over long-term inequality reduction. While 60% of policies could reduce poverty, only 11% are likely to decrease inequality. The authors identify 'win-win' policies (e.g., energy efficiency in social housing) and 'lose-lose' policies (e.g., fossil fuel extraction support), arguing that the social outcomes of energy transitions depend heavily on policy design, contextual factors, and complementary social protections.

The document argues that TotalEnergies' 2022 climate plan is incomplete and incompatible with a 1.5°C pathway, citing a lack of short-term absolute Scope 3 targets and continued investment in oil and gas expansion. It recommends that investors vote against the management-sponsored 'Say on Climate' resolution and oppose the reappointment of specific Directors to signal disapproval of the company's fossil fuel strategy. The briefing also highlights legal and reputational risks associated with the EACOP project in East Africa, greenwashing lawsuits, and the company's continued assets in Russia.