Search Climate Insights Directory

The Center for International Environmental Law asserts that COP26 faces a critical 'ambition gap' and warns against 'false solutions' such as net-zero targets and carbon capture that distract from the necessary phase-out of fossil fuels. The statement emphasizes that legitimate outcomes require equitable participation, particularly for low-income countries and Indigenous Peoples, and calls for developed nations to fulfill their $100 billion annual climate finance promise. It specifically critiques the UK's leadership for continuing North Sea oil leasing while promoting global climate action. The document advocates for a rights-based approach to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement to prevent land-grabs and double-counting of emissions, and demands the establishment of a dedicated loss and damage finance facility to support the most vulnerable communities.

The document characterizes "net-zero by 2050" pledges as a "dangerous greenwashing gimmick" that allows polluters to maintain a facade of climate action while protecting profits. It argues that net-zero is fundamentally different from "zero emissions" and relies on "unjust offsetting schemes," unproven technologies, and geoengineering. The authors contend that these schemes perpetuate environmental racism and injustice, particularly in BIPOC and low-wealth communities. The document demands that the United States, as a major historical polluter, achieve absolute greenhouse gas emissions reductions by 2030, keep fossil fuels in the ground, eliminate industrial wood biomass and factory farming, and provide international finance and technical assistance to developing countries.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) asserts that the government must shift from risk management to a hazard prevention paradigm to protect public health. Key recommendations include eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, reforming the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), implementing a just transition for workers and Indigenous peoples, and adopting a planetary health lens to integrate climate adaptation and mitigation.

The briefing outlines the primary focus areas for COP26, including the completion of the Paris rulebook, the implementation of Article 6 regarding carbon markets, and the updating of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Experts discuss the distinction between 'net-zero' and the Paris Agreement's goal of balancing emissions and removals, the role of the IPCC in informing negotiations, and the mechanisms for addressing 'loss and damage' through the Warsaw International Mechanism and the Santiago Network. The document emphasizes the bottom-up nature of the Paris Agreement, which relies on national pledges and transparency rather than binding global limits.

The document encourages local newsrooms to cover COP26 by framing the international summit through the lens of local leadership, national legislation like the US 'Build Back Better' bill, and the role of subnational climate coalitions.

A coalition of environmental organizations, including Reclaim Finance and Greenpeace France, urges AXA to align its energy policy with the IEA's Net Zero Emissions scenario by stopping the underwriting of new fossil fuel exploration and infrastructure. The letter argues that AXA, as a leader in the Net-Zero Insurance Alliance and a pioneer in coal divestment, must now phase out support for oil and gas expansion to maintain its climate credibility and shareholder value.

The United Arab Emirates is the first Gulf state to announce a national drive to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, with plans to invest $163 billion in renewable energy. The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) suggests that the UAE can leverage its technical capacity to scale low-carbon hydrogen and carbon capture and storage (CCS) to decarbonize its energy exports and support global climate targets. Key recommendations include expanding wind and solar power, developing both blue and green hydrogen, joining the Global Methane Pledge, and establishing international frameworks for clean fuel certification.

A coalition of environmental organizations, including Reclaim Finance and Greenpeace, is urging AXA to end its insurance services for new oil and gas production and transportation infrastructure. The letter argues that AXA, as a leader in the insurance industry and chair of the Net-Zero Insurance Alliance, should follow the International Energy Agency's (IEA) 2021 World Energy Outlook, which states that no new fossil fuel exploration or fields are required for a net-zero scenario. The authors highlight AXA's previous leadership in divesting from coal and suggest that a similar exit from oil and gas would benefit both the climate and the company's shareholder value.

The document examines the allocation of Indonesia's COVID-19 recovery funds, noting a heavy bias toward fossil fuels over renewable energy, and suggests shifting fiscal stimulus toward renewables to meet climate targets.

The document argues that Shell engaged in a campaign of deception regarding climate change despite internal reports as early as 1988 warning that impacts could be the greatest in recorded history. It highlights a contradiction between Shell's public net-zero pledges and its financial investments, noting that between 2010 and 2018, only 1.3% of capital expenditures went to low-carbon projects. Furthermore, the briefing asserts that Shell's nature-based offset plans are unrealistic, requiring forest planting on a scale comparable to the size of Spain or Brazil.

Following the 2021 federal election, all major Canadian political parties have committed to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 and carbon reductions by 2030. The document highlights the importance of the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, which mandates five-year milestones and established the Net-Zero Advisory Body. It emphasizes that achieving the 2030 target requires scaling 'safe bet' solutions—such as energy-efficient buildings and clean electricity—while calling for a comprehensive emissions reduction plan that addresses carbon pricing, emerging technologies, and a just transition for workers.

The document examines the resurgence of carbon capture and storage (CCS) in Europe as a critical tool for decarbonizing heavy industries and achieving Paris Agreement targets. It analyzes EU-level policies like the TEN-E Regulation and the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), alongside financing tools such as the Innovation Fund and Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). The paper highlights a strategic shift toward 'carbon management hubs' to achieve economies of scale and reviews national progress in Norway, the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Germany, concluding that existing policy levers may be insufficient for the required scale-up.

The document highlights a significant discrepancy between the UK advertising industry's operational carbon footprint and the emissions of its fossil fuel clients, urging the industry to include client impact in its net zero accounting.

ClientEarth argues that the UK government's proposed 'Better Regulation' framework, informed by the TIGGR report, risks a deregulatory shift that would threaten environmental protections. The organization specifically opposes the adoption of a 'common law approach' to regulation and a 'new' proportionality principle, warning that these could erode the precautionary principle and lead to 'death by a thousand cuts' for the environment. ClientEarth also cautions against delegating excessive discretion to regulators through guidance rather than legislation, citing failures in oil and gas and agricultural pollution enforcement. Instead, it advocates for a prescriptive, government-led approach that integrates the value of natural capital into regulatory impact assessments.

The document examines the legal frameworks governing shareholder resolutions in thirteen European countries, focusing on how investors can compel companies to adopt Paris-aligned climate strategies. It identifies a recurring tension between the general management powers of corporate Boards and the reserved rights of shareholders to amend a company's Articles of Association. The guide argues that framing climate 'asks'—such as net-zero commitments, transition plans, 'Say on Climate' votes, and lobbying disclosures—as amendments to the Articles of Association is often the most effective legal path to ensure resolutions are tabled at Annual General Meetings (AGMs). While the UK, Ireland, Spain, and Sweden are described as relatively simple jurisdictions for filing, others like France, Germany, and Austria require more nuanced framing to avoid infringing on Board competencies. The Netherlands is highlighted as the only jurisdiction among the thirteen where shareholders cannot legally compel a company to table a resolution without Board consent.

The report finds that while net zero commitments from private financial institutions have grown rapidly, reaching USD 93.3 trillion in assets, they often lack the interim targets, detailed transition plans, and specificity in regional or sectoral investment needed for genuine Paris alignment. It highlights a strong focus on coal divestment but a significant lag in phasing out oil and gas financing and addressing biodiversity loss.

The Framework for Sustainable Finance Integrity provides a technical set of 'Necessary Action' metrics across three categories—targets and objectives, implementation, and metrics and transparency—to align the financial sector with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. It identifies significant gaps between current leading practices of major financial coalitions and the scientific requirements for a viable net zero pathway, particularly regarding short-term emissions targets, the phase-out of all fossil fuel finance, and the integration of social justice and biodiversity into financial mandates.

The fact sheet identifies six corporate entities—BP, Microsoft, IETA, BlackRock, Shell, and Drax—that the author claims are using "net zero" agendas to mask continued fossil fuel investment, rely on unproven technology, and influence policymakers through extensive lobbying and partnerships surrounding COP26.

The fact sheet details how six major corporate players—BP, Microsoft, Drax, IETA, BlackRock, and Shell—employ 'net zero' agendas to maintain business-as-usual operations. It contends that these entities promote 'false solutions' such as carbon offsets, BECCS, and hydrogen to delay emissions cuts at the source. The document further highlights the influence of these corporations on COP26 through sponsorship, lobbying, and participation in industry-led initiatives like the Race to Zero and the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets.

The document critiques the 'net zero' narrative promoted by the UK presidency of COP26, arguing that it ignores historical responsibility and relies on scientifically flawed assumptions about carbon removal. It warns that 'net zero' acts as a 'Trojan horse' for dangerous geoengineering and allows polluters to use carbon offsets to maintain business-as-usual emissions. The author calls for a shift toward 'real zero' targets, absolute emission reductions by the Global North, and the exclusion of corporate polluters from COP26.