Search Climate Insights Directory

The report finds that while the number of non-state and subnational actors setting climate targets is growing, there is limited evidence that this ambition is translating into realized impacts. Full implementation of individual targets could reduce 2030 emissions by 2.0 to 2.5 GtCO2e/year, while international cooperative initiatives' goals could lead to a reduction of 16 GtCO2e/year. However, progress is uneven, with only half of city governments and 80% of companies meeting their 2020 targets.

The document argues that African nations must align their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and Long-term Low Emissions Strategies (LTSs) with a cohesive vision for carbon neutrality by 2050. It highlights the necessity of integrating COVID-19 green recovery plans with these climate goals and emphasizes that current global mitigation and adaptation pledges remain insufficient to meet IPCC recommendations. For Africa, the briefing identifies climate finance, adaptation, loss and damage, and youth inclusion as critical priorities for the COP26 agenda.

The Geological Society of London (GSL) has aligned its investment and gift acceptance policies and reports that its funds are not currently invested in coal, oil, or gas companies. While the GSL lacks a formal environmental policy, it aims to establish one by the end of 2022 and intends to pledge to reach Net Zero emissions by the end of 2021. The Society maintains patronage from Rio Tinto, citing the company's ongoing governance improvements, and is considering thresholds for disclosing corporate sponsorship in its 2021 Annual Accounts.

Ember's response to the UK government's call for evidence on biomass argues that the assumption of carbon neutrality for biomass power is scientifically unsupported and that such generation is more expensive than alternatives. The organization advocates for tightening sustainability regulations to exclude feedstocks from high-carbon or biodiverse forests and suggests that limited sustainable biomass should be diverted from the power sector toward construction and hard-to-abate industries. Ember also recommends unbundling residual and negative emissions budgets in UK carbon accounting and exploring lower-risk negative emissions routes, such as nature-based solutions and domestic energy crops on degraded land, over large-scale BECCS projects.

ClientEarth argues that Lloyd's of London's 2020 ESG Report fails to align the insurance market with the Paris Agreement goals. The letter highlights gaps in the 'Climate Targets', such as the lack of restrictions on oil and gas (outside tar sands and the Arctic) and the absence of scope 3 emissions targets. ClientEarth asserts that the Society of Lloyd's has a legal duty under PRA Solvency II rules and the 'prudent person principle' to manage climate risks, which include physical risks making assets uninsurable and transition risks leading to stranded assets. The document questions whether the Climate Targets are binding and calls for transparent public disclosure of managing agents' compliance.

A joint statement by Reclaim Finance, Urgewald, and BlackRock’s Big Problem criticizing BlackRock for voting in support of weak climate plans at Total and Shell during the 2021 European shareholder season, despite the firm's public rhetoric on climate risk.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Total's climate plan and the shareholders who supported it, arguing that the plan ignores IEA guidelines by continuing investment in new oil and gas projects. The author highlights a contradiction where investors, including AXA and BNP Paribas, support the plan despite their own carbon neutrality commitments, suggesting that short-term dividends are prioritized over the energy transition.

The document highlights that steelmaking is a highly emission-intensive process, contributing approximately 8% of global CO2 emissions annually. It argues that reducing these emissions is essential for achieving net-zero by 2050 and meeting Paris Agreement commitments, suggesting that G7 nations should lead international cooperation to establish the groundwork for a global industrial transition.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) has called on the Royal Meteorological Society to phase out financial ties to the fossil fuel and arms industries. While acknowledging the Society's commitment to becoming a net zero organisation, SGR identifies critical gaps in transparency regarding investments and a lack of a formal environmental policy. The letter demands the disclosure of corporate payments over £1,000 and investments over £5,000, alongside a transition to fossil-fuel-free indexes. SGR benchmarks these demands against other professional bodies, such as the British Medical Association and the Geological Society, which have already implemented divestment or restrictive investment policies.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) has written to the Royal Society calling for the rapid phase-out of financial ties to the fossil fuel and arms industries. SGR identifies several concerns, including the acceptance of donations from these sectors and a lack of transparency regarding specific company investments. The letter outlines ten specific demands, including the use of fossil fuel-free indexes, reporting the carbon footprint of the investment portfolio, and joining the Pledge to Net Zero. SGR notes that other professional bodies, such as the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians, have already divested from fossil fuels and arms companies.

The authors call on G7 finance ministers to move from commitments to decisive action by establishing a financial framework that includes mandatory climate risk disclosure across supply chains, carbon pricing aligned with the 1.5°C goal, and the delivery of overdue climate finance to developing countries.

The We Mean Business Coalition, representing over 1,800 companies with a combined market cap of US$24.8 trillion, calls on G7 heads of state to adopt specific climate policies. Key recommendations include phasing out coal by 2030, ending fossil fuel subsidies by 2025, and mandating climate-related financial disclosures. The coalition argues that a green recovery will better boost GDP and employment than traditional stimulus measures and urges the G7 to lead by example ahead of G20 and COP26.

The document argues that current national climate pledges are inadequate to limit warming to 1.5°C and calls for a transition away from fossil fuels rather than relying on net-zero promises. It emphasizes the need for rigorous rules for Article 6 carbon trading to prevent double-counting and protect human rights, criticizes the omission of loss and damage from the SB52 agenda, and highlights how the virtual format of the negotiations impairs the participation of civil society and Indigenous Peoples.

The guide argues that public understanding of net-zero is currently limited and that governments must adopt evidence-based, tangible, and inclusive communication strategies to mobilize society. It recommends avoiding technical jargon, using positive imagery, and focusing on local realities and immediate actions to build public confidence and support for climate targets.

Between January 2020 and March 3, 2021, G7 nations invested more in fossil fuels (US$189 billion) than in clean energy (US$147 billion), despite pledges to achieve net-zero emissions by mid-century. The report finds that over 80% of fossil fuel funding lacked 'green strings' or climate targets, while only 10% of COVID-19 response funds supported the cleanest energy measures. To align with the Paris Climate Agreement, the report recommends that the G7 end support for fossil fuel production, increase green recovery spending to at least 40% of total COVID-19 recovery funds, and double climate finance pledges to assist low- and middle-income countries.

ClientEarth is supporting five Polish citizens in lawsuits against the Polish government, claiming that the state's failure to address climate change violates personal rights under the Polish Civil Code and human rights under the European Convention of Human Rights. The claimants seek a legally enforceable right to a healthy environment and a commitment from Poland to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 61% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2043 to align with the Paris Agreement's 1.5 degree goal. The document highlights Poland's heavy reliance on coal, with 70% of electricity coming from coal and significant public subsidies for fossil fuels, as well as the specific climate-related impacts—such as droughts, floods, and wildfires—experienced by the claimants.

The report characterizes "net zero" agendas as a "Great Cheat," asserting that they allow major polluters to continue emissions while relying on unproven technologies and flawed offsetting schemes. It details how these entities use lobbying, financial influence over academia, and corporate capture of international forums like the UNFCCC to displace real emission reductions. The document highlights specific failures in the plans of companies such as Shell, Total SA, and JBS, and calls for a transition to "Real Zero" by 2030 through systemic change and climate justice.

The document analyzes how 'Big Polluters' across various sectors use 'net zero' targets as a form of greenwashing to delay real emission reductions. It identifies critical conceptual flaws in these plans, such as reliance on unproven geoengineering and carbon offsets, and details how these corporations influence political and academic institutions to validate their agendas. Case studies on companies like Shell, Total SA, and JBS illustrate the gap between public commitments and actual business operations, while the report calls for a transition to 'Real Zero' by 2030.

The report claims that "net zero" agendas are a form of greenwashing used by "Big Polluters" to avoid reducing emissions. It identifies these entities as industries responsible for the majority of historical emissions, including fossil fuels, agribusiness, and aviation. The document details how these actors use risky technologies like BECCS and carbon offsets as "dangerous distractions" and employ lobbying, financial contributions, and academic partnerships to shape climate policy in their favor. Case studies on JBS, Shell, and Total SA are used to illustrate how these plans often mask continued pollution and lead to land grabbing in the Global South.

The report contends that "net zero" pledges from "Big Polluters"—including fossil fuel, agribusiness, and tech giants—are deceptive strategies to avoid responsibility for climate change. It identifies "dangerous distractions" such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), and carbon offsets, arguing these schemes often lead to human rights abuses and "carbon colonialism." The document details how these corporations influence policy through lobbying, financial contributions to politicians, and the funding of academic research at institutions like Stanford and MIT to validate "net zero" narratives. Case studies of Shell, Total SA, and JBS are used to illustrate how these plans often mask continued production of high-emissions products.