Search Climate Insights Directory

The report finds that 'responsible' employee savings funds offered by France's top account keepers are marginal and often contradictory to climate goals. It highlights that over 30% of responsible funds from Crédit Agricole and Société Générale invest in fossil fuel expansion, attributing this to partnerships with asset managers like Amundi. The study also accuses these institutions of greenwashing through misleading marketing, while noting that BNP Paribas E&RE and Natixis Interépargne offer more aligned options via managers like Mirova.

The report finds that while 61% of Moldovans describe their knowledge of climate change as 'good' or 'very good', there is a significant gap between this perception and actual engagement. Public priorities for environmental protection focus on water access and waste management, while energy security is a major concern, with 65% of respondents worried about dependence on external energy sources. Support for the green transition is highest for corporate sustainability and renewable energy, though high costs remain a primary barrier to the adoption of renewable energy in households.

In 2024, global new coal capacity reached its lowest level in two decades at 44 GW, though China and India continued significant expansions. While the EU27 saw a fourfold increase in plant closures and the UK shut its last coal plant, Indonesia faces a contradictory trend: overall proposed capacity is down 90% since 2015, but 'captive' coal plants for industrial use are surging. Indonesia's transition is further complicated by conflicting government statements on a 2040 phase-out, the withdrawal of the US from the JETP leadership, and record coal production reaching 831 million tons in 2024.

In 2024, the world commissioned the lowest amount of new coal power capacity in twenty years (44 GW), yet the global coal fleet still grew by 18.8 GW because additions exceeded retirements. The report highlights a stark divergence: while the UK became coal-free and EU27 retirements quadrupled, China saw its highest construction starts since 2015 (94 GW) and India recorded its highest year for new proposals (38.4 GW). Together, China and India accounted for 92% of all newly proposed coal capacity in 2024. In the OECD, proposals have plummeted from 142 in 2015 to five today, though annual retirements must more than triple to 70 GW to meet 1.5°C pathways. The report also notes the rise of 'captive' coal plants in Indonesia and the promotion of ammonia co-firing in Japan and South Korea as strategies to prolong coal use.

The guide outlines six essential steps for advertising agencies and brands to integrate sustainability into their business models: organization, briefing, production, content, information integrity, and climate literacy. It emphasizes the need to combat climate disinformation, reduce Scope 3 emissions, and avoid greenwashing to meet consumer demand for responsible brand behavior.

The document outlines a 24-month readiness project implemented by the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI) to operationalize a national MRV system in Guyana. It focuses on filling data gaps in the Waste and IPPU sectors, strengthening institutional arrangements, and building technical capacity for government and private sector stakeholders. The project aims to align Guyana's reporting with IPCC and Paris Agreement standards, develop a pipeline of bankable mitigation projects, and implement a system for tracking internal and external climate finance flows.

The statement argues that large-scale forest biomass energy is not carbon neutral and actively harms the climate, biodiversity, and human rights. It claims that current carbon accounting erroneously labels biomass as zero-emission, which masks the actual greenhouse gas releases and encourages deforestation. The document further asserts that biomass energy extends the lifespan of coal plants and diverts investment from truly low-emission renewables like wind and solar. It calls on governments and financial institutions to stop the expansion of the biomass industry and eliminate related subsidies in favor of forest restoration.

The document analyzes climate obstruction in Argentina and Brazil, identifying a shift toward explicit climate denial under President Javier Milei in Argentina and a complex mix of agribusiness-led obstruction and state-driven fossil fuel expansion in Brazil. It highlights how developmentalist ideologies and economic lobbying in both nations hinder the transition to low-carbon economies, despite Brazil's recent efforts to reduce Amazonian deforestation.

The report argues that Australia is a 'fossil fuel behemoth' whose exported emissions are projected to be 3.3 times larger than its domestic emissions within five years. It highlights that despite IEA warnings against new developments, Australia has approved 30 new coal and gas projects since 2021. The document asserts that a conservative selection of planned projects could consume 6.2% of the remaining global 1.5°C carbon budget. It further criticizes the Australian Safeguard Mechanism as insufficient because it does not manage exported emissions or prevent new project approvals. Finally, it contrasts Australia's fossil fuel expansion with its public commitments to Pacific nations and its bid to co-host COP31.

The document outlines how a proposed Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty would fill a regulatory void by focusing on the supply side of fossil fuels, which is not explicitly addressed in the Paris Agreement or UNFCCC. It proposes a 'coalition of the willing' approach to set high ambition standards, using majority decision-making to avoid the consensus-based deadlocks of the UNFCCC. The treaty aims to end new fossil fuel expansion, phase out existing projects in line with a 1.5°C limit, and provide financial and technical support for a just transition for dependent communities and workers.

The document proposes a new binding legal instrument, the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, to accelerate the phase-out of coal, oil, and gas. It argues that while the Paris Agreement and UNFCCC provide a general framework for climate action, they lack specific mechanisms to regulate the supply side of fossil fuels. The proposed treaty would focus on three pillars: ending new fossil fuel projects, phasing out existing infrastructure aligned with a 1.5 °C limit, and ensuring a just transition for dependent communities. Unlike the consensus-based decision-making of the UNFCCC, the treaty would employ a 'Coalition of the Willing' approach and majority voting to prevent a small number of states from blocking ambitious action.

The Manila Investment Policy Forum Toolkit offers a two-step framework for governments to align investment treaties, laws, and contracts with international commitments. The first step involves mapping international agreements across policy areas such as climate and human rights, while the second step evaluates how specific investment legal provisions support, are neutral toward, or contradict those commitments. The guide emphasizes adaptability and suggests integrating the tool within institutional coordination mechanisms to mitigate regulatory inconsistencies and litigation risks.

The Manila Investment Policy Forum Tool Kit offers a two-step framework for governments to ensure horizontal coherence between investment regulations and broader public policy goals. The first step involves mapping international commitments (such as the Paris Agreement) across policy domains like climate, health, and human rights. The second step is a comparative analysis to determine if specific investment treaties, laws, or contracts align with, are neutral toward, or contradict these commitments. The tool is designed to be flexible and is most effective when integrated into institutional coordination mechanisms, such as inter-ministerial committees, to facilitate informed reforms of investment legal frameworks.

The document is a global communiqué from March 2025 detailing a consensus among 28 countries to prioritize justice and inclusivity in the energy transition. It emphasizes the insufficiency of current investment levels in developing countries and calls for the use of concessional financing, technology transfer, and country-specific transition plans to eradicate energy poverty and build climate resilience. The signatories commit to fostering domestic manufacturing, diversifying supply chains, and strengthening regional cooperation projects such as Mission 300 and the RELAC Initiative to align national investment with Paris Agreement goals.

The report argues that Indonesia's promotion of natural gas as a 'transitional fuel' and the continued financing of gas projects by Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) lock the country into fossil fuel dependence and hinder its climate commitments. It highlights significant environmental, social, and governance risks associated with gas infrastructure, including methane emissions, corruption, and human rights violations, while calling for an immediate shift toward renewable energy.

The report argues that promoting LNG as a 'transition fuel' in Indonesia creates a long-term dependency on fossil fuels and contradicts climate commitments. It highlights that Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), including the World Bank Group and ADB, continue to support gas infrastructure through technical assistance and policy loans despite their public Paris Alignment pledges. The document details numerous negative impacts of gas projects, including corruption in LNG procurement, human rights violations in Aceh, and environmental disasters such as the PHE ONWJ oil spill in Karawang. It concludes that gas is not a clean alternative due to high methane emissions and calls for an immediate shift to truly renewable energy.

The Union of Concerned Scientists finds that the 122 largest fossil fuel and cement producers, termed 'Carbon Majors', are responsible for nearly half of present-day surface temperature increases and nearly one-third of observed global mean sea level rise. The research indicates that past emissions from these entities have already guaranteed an additional 10 to 22 inches of sea level rise by 2300. The document argues that these corporations knowingly misled the public and obstructed climate policy, and it advocates for using legal pathways and multilateral negotiations to hold them financially and legally responsible for climate damages, particularly for vulnerable island nations.

The report identifies a wide array of solutions to reduce agricultural methane, which accounts for approximately half of global anthropogenic methane emissions. Key strategies include improving livestock feed efficiency, using methane inhibitors like 3-NOP and Asparagopsis seaweed, implementing advanced manure treatments such as acidification and solid-liquid separation, and adopting water-management practices in rice cultivation like alternate wetting and drying. The authors emphasize that while many technologies are market-ready, widespread adoption is hindered by financial and regulatory barriers, necessitating stronger government support and private sector engagement.

The study finds that while the South African Green Finance Taxonomy (SA GFT) shows high international interoperability regarding its 'Make Substantial Contribution' (MSC) pillar and climate change mitigation priorities, it faces significant usability and adoption challenges regarding the 'Do No Significant Harm' (DNSH) and 'Minimum Social Safeguards' (MSS) pillars. The document recommends introducing more flexible classifications, such as an 'eligible vs aligned' system, increasing the use of quantitative thresholds and international standards (e.g., ISO), and integrating national regulations like the B-BBEE Act into the MSS framework to reduce ambiguity and compliance burdens for market participants.

The document examines the systemic failures of carbon offsetting, highlighting that most credits—particularly those for forestry and renewable energy—lack additionality and environmental integrity. It argues that offsetting often leads to an overall increase in emissions by delaying necessary mitigation and allowing continued investment in high-emitting technologies. The briefing concludes that carbon avoidance and reduction offsets have no place in ambitious climate policies, recommending that priority be given to direct emissions cuts and non-market-based climate finance.