Search Climate Insights Directory

The report by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) examines the Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE), noting that while the organization has committed to net zero operations by 2025 and alignment with climate goals, it maintains 'gold corporate partners' including BP, ExxonMobil, and Shell. SGR criticizes IChemE for a lack of transparency regarding its £6.09m investment portfolio and urges the institution to divest from fossil fuel companies to align with the 1.5°C warming limit and avoid financial and reputational risks.

The document examines the risk of 'stranded assets'—assets that lose economic value before the end of their useful life—driven by climate regulations and the global transition to low-carbon economies. It highlights that Latin America, despite low emissions, holds significant fossil fuel reserves that may become unexploitable to meet the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C target. For Colombia, the risk is acute due to a high economic dependence on oil, gas, and coal exports. The report provides a qualitative framework for investors to identify these risks and points toward renewable energy, specifically solar photovoltaics and wind, as profitable alternatives.

The document details the negative impacts of Harita Group's nickel operations on Obi Island, including marine pollution, forced relocation of residents, and workplace fatalities. It highlights the company's reliance on coal-fired power plants (PLTU) and argues that the IPO of PT Trimegah Bangun Persada Tbk (NCKL) enables further destruction. The text specifically criticizes investors like Glencore and Fidelity International, as well as several global banking underwriters, for breaching net-zero and Paris Agreement commitments by supporting the company.

The Union of Concerned Scientists evaluated Royal Dutch Shell across four metrics: renouncing disinformation, planning for a carbon-free world, supporting climate policies, and disclosing climate risks. While Shell was praised for acknowledging climate science and leaving the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), it was criticized for maintaining ties to trade associations like the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) that spread disinformation. The report also notes that Shell lacks a company-wide emissions reduction plan aligned with specific temperature goals and provides poor disclosure of physical climate risks.

The We Mean Business coalition argues that corporate climate leadership must integrate three pillars: Ambition (setting science-based targets), Action (transforming core business strategies and value chains), and Advocacy (pushing for pro-climate government policies). The report emphasizes that to avoid the sharply growing costs of temperature rises above 1.5°C, global emissions must halve by 2030, and businesses must transition to net-zero by 2050 at the latest. It highlights the necessity of independent verification, executive accountability, and a 'just transition' that considers social equity and workforce reskilling. The framework also stresses the importance of consistency in lobbying, urging companies to ensure their trade associations do not undermine their public climate commitments.

The We Mean Business coalition argues that corporate climate leadership is essential for long-term business success and global economic resilience. It defines leadership as the combination of science-based ambition, transformative business action, and pro-change policy advocacy, emphasizing that current levels of corporate action are insufficient to ensure a sustainable future.

The document outlines a strategic approach for companies to align with a 1.5°C temperature limit through three main pillars: direct action (such as setting science-based targets and addressing Scope 3 emissions), advocacy (including influencing trade associations and policy), and accountability (via transparent reporting and stakeholder engagement).

The We Mean Business Coalition calls on COP26 governments to commit to a 1.5°C trajectory, finalize robust Article 6 market rules, and ensure the delivery of $100 billion in climate finance for developing countries. The coalition emphasizes the need for a transparent Global Stocktake that includes private sector data and a clear process for establishing a Global Goal for Adaptation to build resilience across global supply chains.

The Supplier Cascade is a framework developed by the We Mean Business Coalition and partners to address the difficulty of tracking and reducing Scope 3 emissions, which often exceed 70% of a company's carbon footprint. It encourages companies to focus on their direct relationship with Tier 1 suppliers, asking them to set science-based targets, report progress annually, and require their own Tier 1 suppliers to do the same, creating a 'domino effect' of climate action. The guide outlines specific requirements for implementation, ranging from voluntary asks to best practices involving the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) and the SME Climate Hub, while emphasizing that the approach is designed to be scalable and manageable for procurement teams without requiring deep technical knowledge.

The We Mean Business Coalition presents a series of policy asks across key sectors—including energy, transport, industry, and the built environment—to align global economies with a 1.5°C trajectory. The document highlights existing corporate commitments, such as the 900+ companies aligning with 1.5°C targets, and calls for government action on carbon pricing, the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, and the implementation of just transition plans. It emphasizes that a green recovery from COVID-19 can boost GDP and employment while addressing the climate and biodiversity crises.

The document argues that aligning all public and private finance is a necessary condition for meeting the temperature and adaptation goals of the Paris Agreement. It introduces a framework for governments and non-state actors to drive action, track progress, and increase ambition regarding Article 2.1c. To support this, the paper identifies four primary toolsets for governments: financial policies and regulations, fiscal policy levers, public finance, and information instruments. The author emphasizes urgency, noting that the world must reach net-zero emissions within 25 years to limit warming to 1.5°C, and suggests integrating Article 2.1c into UNFCCC processes like the Global Stocktake and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

The document analyzes the factors contributing to the 'criticality' of minerals in India, emphasizing that supply vulnerabilities arise from domestic scarcity and extreme import dependence. It highlights that India's net zero goals will drive significant demand for mineral-intensive technologies, specifically electric vehicle (EV) batteries and battery energy storage systems (BESS). The paper argues that mineral criticality is shaped by economic, social, and technical factors, and that India's specific vulnerabilities fall under the pillars of security, resilience, and sustainable supplies.

The paper evaluates policy packages and infrastructure investments needed to meet the Biden administration's goals of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 50–52% by 2030 and reaching net-zero by 2050. It concludes that while tax credits and infrastructure investments accelerate technology adoption, they must be paired with performance standards and negative emissions technologies to achieve midcentury goals. The analysis finds that decarbonizing the U.S. economy is economically feasible, with projected net savings of 0.3 percent of U.S. GDP by 2050 relative to a reference scenario.

The document discusses the role of nature-based solutions (NBS) in corporate efforts to offset fossil fuel emissions and the necessity of NBS financing for the transition to net-zero. It highlights the need for companies to prioritize their own emission abatements and demand high-quality credits to ensure the integrity of NBS offsets while policy rules remain under debate.

The paper examines the transition of private sector banks toward net-zero emissions, emphasizing the need to move beyond high-level commitments to operational changes in client engagement and product design. It identifies five critical elements for a Paris-aligned strategy: GHG data management, emissions targets, client benchmarking, clear engagement policies, and the training of relationship managers. The document notes that while momentum is growing through initiatives like the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, many banks are only in the early stages of integrating Paris alignment into their core business strategies.

The ACT 2015 Consortium proposes a legal framework for the 2015 Paris Agreement that integrates mitigation, adaptation, and support through five-year cycles of continuous improvement. Key recommendations include phasing out greenhouse gas emissions to net zero in the second half of the century, establishing a long-term adaptation goal, and ensuring equity for least developed countries and small island developing States through flexible commitments and targeted financial support.

The document addresses the complexity of aligning NDCs with long-term mitigation objectives, noting that countries have not yet committed to the emissions reductions required to limit warming to 1.5°C. It aims to provide guidance for the 2025 next-generation NDCs to ensure they reflect the highest possible ambition and align with net-zero targets and LT-LEDS.

The paper examines the governance of technological carbon dioxide removal (CDR) as countries increasingly integrate these methods into their long-term low-emission development strategies (LTSs). It identifies three primary risks: mitigation deterrence, where CDR focus reduces urgent emissions reductions; equity concerns regarding the distribution of costs and benefits; and a fragmented MRV ecosystem that lacks standardization. The document argues that international collaboration and standardized processes are necessary to ensure the responsible and equitable scale-up of CDR technologies.

The report uses the IMPLAN input-output framework to estimate the employment impacts of four federal climate policy scenarios in the United States by 2035. It finds that decarbonization scenarios—ranging from extended tax credits to a full net-zero path—would create more net jobs than a reference scenario, with the net-zero scenario potentially adding 2.3 million net jobs. The analysis highlights that job growth would be concentrated in building and electricity construction, while noting that some regions and subsectors would face job losses, necessitating targeted investments and domestic content regulations to ensure an equitable transition. Additionally, the report argues that implementing family-sustaining wage requirements for underpaid energy workers would generate significant economy-wide benefits.

The briefing highlights the gap between current energy storage capacities, which provide only hours of power, and the days or weeks of storage needed for deep decarbonization in the US. It identifies hydrogen and modified compressed air or pumped hydro as potential long-duration solutions to manage weather-related and seasonal renewable energy fluctuations. The author urges policymakers to drive innovation and update procurement models to ensure grid reliability in a decarbonized future.