Search Climate Insights Directory

The author evaluates the Paris Climate Agreement as a success, highlighting its binding nature for nearly all countries, the establishment of a transparent five-year review system for INDCs, and the goal to limit global temperature rise to 2°C. While noting the mobilization of 100 billion dollars annually from 2020 for developing nations, the author criticizes the omission of specific terms like 'decarbonization' or 'emissions neutrality'.

The Paris Agreement establishes a global commitment to limit warming to well below 2°C, pursuing efforts for 1.5°C, and introduces a five-year ambition ratcheting mechanism. It creates a new mitigation mechanism that moves beyond pure offsetting and includes human rights protections in its preamble. While it acknowledges international aviation and shipping emissions, these remain outside national targets. The agreement necessitates an update to the EU's 2030 climate target to align with the 1.5°C goal.

The document outlines how climate finance is essential for enabling countries to increase their climate ambitions and build resilience. It identifies four 'crunch issues' for the Paris outcome: determining who provides finance and at what levels, encouraging domestic mobilization of investment, balancing funding between mitigation and adaptation, and ensuring transparent reporting of financial flows.

The document clarifies that the outcome of the Paris climate talks will likely be a 'package' of instruments with varying legal forms, including a core legal agreement, UNFCCC decisions, and potential political declarations. It emphasizes that the legal force of the agreement is determined by its specific content and prescriptive language rather than its name (e.g., treaty, protocol, or accord). The text further explains that the agreement can contain a mix of binding and non-binding provisions and that the domestic ratification processes of participating countries will vary according to their own legal systems.

The We Mean Business Coalition advocates for a 2020 deadline for the first review of global carbon reduction targets, asserting that waiting until 2025 would create excessive uncertainty for business planning and investment. The document highlights the rapid pace of technological change in solar PV, wind power, and electric vehicles as a primary reason for more frequent reviews. It further argues that a 2020 ratchet would signal ambition to investors, helping to leverage $100bn in public climate finance into trillions for climate-smart infrastructure. The text notes that over a hundred global companies have already adopted 'science-based targets' and over fifty influential companies have committed to 100% renewable energy by mid-century or sooner.

The document warns that including land use in climate targets can lead to 'cheating the climate' by allowing countries to replace necessary fossil fuel reductions with unreliable and non-permanent carbon offsets. It highlights specific risks in the US, EU, and Russia, where poor accounting rules or high uncertainty regarding LULUCF emissions could dilute overall mitigation efforts. The author advocates for treating carbon sequestration in forestry and agriculture as a complementary contribution to climate action, rather than a direct substitute for emissions cuts in other sectors.

The report evaluates the emissions commitments of ten countries for 2025 and 2030, analyzing how their INDCs align with different 'fair share' approaches and effort sharing models while considering national mitigation costs, socio-economic development, and current political contexts.

The author argues that corporate organizations must take the lead in climate action because a small number of companies are responsible for a significant portion of global emissions. The text posits that investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency is beneficial for both the environment and corporate bottom lines, and that corporate action can help governments exceed their INDC declarations for COP 21.

The Global Climate Policy Conference 2015 explored innovative research-driven approaches to climate action, focusing on the intersection of development, adaptation, carbon pricing, and state accountability. Key discussions highlighted the need for a 'club' approach to carbon pricing and technology, the importance of microfinance and local capacity in adaptation, and the role of basic energy research in breaking the link between emissions and economic growth.

The policy brief advocates for aligning the 2015 Paris climate negotiations with the UN's 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It proposes that the final treaty include a new article requiring parties to develop national zero-carbon climate-resilient strategies with decarbonization trajectories by 2050. The brief emphasizes that climate action must be integrated into broader national development portfolios—including energy, trade, and health—and that monitoring and accountability frameworks (MRV) should be aligned with the human rights and gender-sensitive principles of the 2030 Agenda.

The report evaluates the first year of the New York Declaration on Forests (NYDF), noting that while new initiatives and commitments have emerged, overall progress remains slow. Key achievements include the integration of a zero-deforestation goal into the UN Sustainable Development Goals and increased funding for clean cookstoves. However, the report finds no evidence that the rate of natural forest clearing is slowing, and significant gaps remain in forest restoration targets and the protection of indigenous land rights.

The report evaluates the first year of the New York Declaration on Forests (NYDF), noting that while new initiatives and commitments have emerged, overall progress toward eliminating natural forest loss by 2030 remains slow. Key achievements include the inclusion of a deforestation goal in the Sustainable Development Goals and increased funding for clean cookstoves, which reached USD 260 million in 2014. However, the report finds no evidence that the annual rate of natural forest deforestation is decreasing. Progress in agricultural commodity supply chains is mixed, with certified sustainable palm oil growing by 18% globally, while certified sustainable soy represents only 2% of the market. Restoration efforts are underway, with 62.59 million hectares committed via the Bonn Challenge, though this is only 42% of the 2020 target. Financial flows for forest emission reductions have increased, with bilateral Official Development Assistance (ODA) rising from an annual average of USD 365 million (2002-07) to USD 744 million (2008-13), but actual REDD+ disbursements lag behind the USD 3 billion in commitments made between 2008 and 2014.

The report examines the societal costs of coal use in China, specifically focusing on the billions of dollars in subsidies provided to producers and consumers. It argues that these subsidies increase coal consumption, which in turn generates negative externalities such as greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, while acting as a barrier to renewable energy growth.

This report details a Carbon Market Watch webinar on Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), emphasizing the role of civil society in ensuring sustainability and accountability. It highlights that while 162 NAMAs are in the pipeline, there are currently no agreed rules for stakeholder engagement. The report presents case studies from Mexico, where a low-emission school pilot empowered youth, and Georgia, where a gender-sensitive NAMA focused on energy-efficient stoves reduced rural poverty and improved gender equality.

The document outlines the importance of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) as public outlines of national climate plans starting in 2020. It establishes a set of criteria for a 'strong' INDC—defined as fair, ambitious, feasible, and transparent—and provides a detailed six-question evaluation framework. This framework guides users to check for clear statements of intent (mitigation and adaptation), alignment with climate science (specifically the 2 degrees C goal), fairness based on national circumstances, the strength of the design process, implementation feasibility, and methodological transparency.

The document offers a structured approach for LDCs and SIDS to develop INDCs, emphasizing that these countries may use strategies, plans, or specific projects rather than absolute emission reductions. It provides templates for mitigation (action-based or result-based), adaptation, planning processes, and means of implementation, while highlighting the importance of transparency, national circumstances, and the pursuit of co-benefits such as poverty reduction and energy access.

The report examines the concept of 'Green Growth' and its potential to unblock international climate negotiations. It identifies a lack of a unified definition among stakeholders—including economists, the private sector, and civil society—and notes that while some developing nations have adopted the framework, major powers like the US, China, and the EU have not. The document argues that the narrative can gain traction by evidencing climate co-benefits and aligning with the Intended National Determined Contributions (INDC) process. Case studies from Brazil, India, and Colombia illustrate how these principles are applied domestically, though challenges such as low loan take-up in Brazil and the need for affordable technology in India persist.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) evaluated the land sector (AFOLU) plans within the initial INDCs of the US, EU, and Mexico. The analysis finds a stark contrast between developed and developing nations: while the US and EU provide reasonable accounting standards, they lack specific action plans to realize their substantial mitigation potentials. In contrast, Mexico provides a highly transparent and ambitious plan, including a goal of zero deforestation by 2030 and a target for emissions to peak and decline by 2026. The report emphasizes that the land sector is critical for closing the global emissions gap, but current INDCs from developed nations are insufficient in detail to determine if their ambitions match their capacities.

The document outlines a comprehensive list of information elements for Parties to include in their INDCs, focusing on quantifiable data regarding baselines, timeframes, scope, planning processes, and methodological assumptions. It specifically details requirements for greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting, the use of international market mechanisms, and the treatment of the land sector. Additionally, it suggests indicators for demonstrating the fairness and ambition of contributions in relation to national circumstances and the goals of the Convention.

Carbon Market Watch asserts that the EU's plan to link the EU ETS with the Swiss carbon market necessitates an increase in the EU's domestic reduction target beyond 40%, as the current target is intended to be achieved without international credits. The organization warns that a surplus of emission allowances, estimated to reach 2.6 GtCO2 by 2020, could dilute the 2030 target by 7%. Additionally, the document highlights risks from accounting tricks involving Member State surpluses and artificial gains in forest management, which could further weaken the target by 5% each.