Search Climate Insights Directory

ClientEarth, Amis de la Terre France, and Notre Affaire à Tous allege that TotalEnergies SE has misled investors by claiming alignment with the Paris Agreement while continuing to increase fossil fuel production. The report argues that such misinformation obscures systemic financial risks, as climate change threatens global economic stability and asset valuations. It specifically challenges the company's claims regarding the role of natural gas as a 'transition energy' and its 'net zero' ambitions, citing a 2025 Paris court ruling that found the company's consumer communications to be misleading.

The document argues that policy incoherence is driven not by poor coordination, but by power asymmetries, vested interests, and the prioritization of economic growth over social and environmental goals. Based on research in nine countries, it finds that fossil-fuel interests consistently drive incoherence and that vulnerable groups disproportionately bear the resulting burdens. It calls for a post-2030 framework that moves beyond 'synergies' to address distributional consequences and cross-border spillovers.

Nineteen clean freight advocates are calling on members of the Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) to withdraw support for the repeal of the U.S. EPA's Phase 3 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. The authors argue that the EMA's decision to intervene in litigation to repeal these standards and the Endangerment Finding undermines public health, climate protections, and the U.S.'s ability to comply with the Paris Agreement. They claim that this regulatory instability hinders manufacturer investment and risks U.S. competitiveness against domestic competitors like Tesla and global competitors such as BYD. The letter suggests that companies should distance themselves from the EMA or withdraw membership to signal support for durable clean transportation policy.

The report argues that the proposed Turkish ETS is fundamentally weak due to its reliance on an intensity-based cap, broad unconditional free allocation, and the use of offsets. These design choices are expected to prevent the system from generating a meaningful carbon price signal, thereby failing to drive emissions reductions aligned with the Paris Agreement and leaving Turkish exporters exposed to significant CBAM fees. The authors recommend transitioning to an absolute declining cap, phasing out offsets, and shifting toward auctioning to retain climate revenues domestically.

The briefing argues that while climate and sustainable development goals are theoretically synergistic, actual policy coherence is hindered by political inequality, vested interests, and the prioritization of economic growth. Through analysis of nine countries and global NDC data, the research demonstrates that coherence is not a neutral technocratic exercise but a political process with significant distributional consequences, often burdening vulnerable groups when political will for equity is absent.

The document assesses the UN climate regime's transition into an 'implementation era' following the completion of the Paris Agreement Rulebook. It identifies systemic inefficiencies, including a predominance of procedural over substantive decisions, overlapping mandates of constituted bodies, and significant funding gaps for developing countries. The authors argue that the regime is hindered by a de facto veto system based on consensus and the influence of fossil fuel lobbyists. Key recommendations include streamlining negotiation agendas, adopting formal voting rules, formally closing the Kyoto Protocol, and integrating the UNFCCC with other Rio Conventions to address the root causes of the climate crisis.

The document outlines the environmental risks associated with the EU-Mercosur trade agreement, specifically regarding deforestation in the Amazon and other biomes, the extraction of critical minerals, and the potential conflict between the trade deal and the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR).

The briefing argues that the Asian Development Bank (ADB) uses financial intermediaries (FIs) like Clifford Capital to bypass restrictions on fossil gas investments. While the ADB committed to Paris Agreement goals in 2017 and stopped financing coal, it provided approximately $4.48bn for oil and gas infrastructure in Asia Pacific between 2017 and 2025. The document highlights Clifford Capital, which received a $95m equity investment from the ADB in 2020, as a channel for funding fossil gas projects, including the Tangguh LNG project in Indonesia and Bhola-2 in Bangladesh. The authors call for greater transparency in FI lending, a prohibition on new fossil gas infrastructure funding, and a time-bound fossil fuels exit plan.

The statement contends that the global fossil fuel system is inherently violent and volatile, citing 2026 conflicts in the Middle East and Venezuela as evidence. It advocates for the Santa Marta conference as a mechanism to move beyond the industry-influenced COP process to implement concrete actions, such as 'polluters pay' taxes on fossil fuel profits and grant-based climate finance for the Global South. The author asserts that the economic cost of fossil fuel price spikes outweighs the cost of transitioning to net zero, noting that 91% of new renewables projects are now cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) advocates for a managed, financed, and equitable fossil fuel phaseout during the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia. CIEL proposes a binding Fossil Fuel Treaty to fill governance gaps and argues that states have a legal obligation, supported by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), to phase out fossil fuels. Key priorities include dismantling Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, ending offshore oil and gas licensing, halting petrochemical expansion, and rejecting carbon capture and geoengineering. The document emphasizes that the transition must be funded by the largest cumulative polluters and grounded in human rights and Indigenous leadership.

The report argues that subnational governments are critical to the global transition away from fossil fuels because extraction facilities, workforces, and communities are located within their jurisdictions. It recommends that these governments diversify local economies, develop time-bound and financed transition roadmaps, and reduce Scope 1 and 2 emissions from existing operations. The document emphasizes that emissions reductions should complement rather than replace the transition away from production. It also advocates for multilevel policy alignment and international cooperation through alliances such as the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance and the Powering Past Coal Alliance.

The authors argue that voluntary initiatives to reduce fossil fuel subsidies have failed, as evidenced by 2023 subsidies reaching $794 billion. They propose a binding WTO agreement based on the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability (ACCTS) model, which uses the Standardized Carbon Rate Measurement (SCRM) to ensure carbon prices remain above committed levels. The paper suggests that successful subsidy removal depends on a state's ability to transition to green energy and recommends a WTO waiver on local content requirements to support this transition.

Ghana faces a critical juncture where economic recovery is threatened by a fragile, high-carbon energy sector and widespread illegal mining. The energy sector is characterized by high debt, a heavy reliance on thermal generation, and a lack of renewable energy investment. Simultaneously, illegal mining (galamsey) causes severe deforestation and water pollution, threatening food security and the viability of hydropower. The document proposes a transition toward sustainable growth through competitive solar auctions, the establishment of a green investment facility, the formalization of artisanal mining via the Ghana Gold Board, and large-scale ecosystem restoration.

The paper reviews frameworks used to track the alignment of finance flows with low greenhouse gas emissions and climate resilient development as mandated by Article 2.1(c) of the Paris Agreement. It classifies these frameworks based on parameters such as application level, reference pathways, and finance flow polarities to identify blind spots—specifically in adaptation finance, corporate investment, and internal financing—and aims to inform the creation of a country-level framework, starting with an application in Germany.

The document argues that traditional carbon offsetting is inherently deceptive because carbon credits cannot reliably counterbalance emissions on climate-relevant timescales. It advocates for the 'beyond value chain mitigation' (BVCM) approach, where credits are treated as contributions to global climate action rather than offsets. The guide outlines principles for credible communication, including the prioritisation of internal decarbonisation and the use of transparent, non-ambiguous language. It also provides case studies of misleading claims from entities like Climate Impact Partners, Audi, and Apple, and offers recommendations for policymakers to ban offsetting claims and for consumers to identify 'red flags' in corporate communications.

Carbon Market Watch opposes the use of international carbon credits to meet the EU's 2040 climate target, arguing that such a strategy would result in higher EU emissions, shift responsibility to the Global South, and undermine industrial competitiveness. The organization asserts that current carbon credit markets lack sufficient quality and transparency. While primarily advocating for a fully domestic approach, the document outlines strict quality criteria and a centralized purchasing mechanism that should be implemented if the EU proceeds with international credits as a last resort.

The report analyzes the first round of Article 6.2 reviews, finding that every reviewed Initial Report contained inconsistencies with reporting requirements. It argues that the Technical Expert Review Team (TERT) lacks the mandate to judge credit quality or enforce compliance, rendering the process a 'box-ticking exercise'. Case studies on Switzerland, Ghana, Guyana, and Vanuatu illustrate how high-risk or non-compliant credits can be traded despite transparency gaps. The author recommends extending the TERT mandate to include quality assessments and prohibiting the trade of credits until reviews are finalized.

The document outlines three distinct 'tracks' for a just transition from fossil fuels. The UNFCCC and Paris Agreement provide a universal framework for emissions reduction but lack explicit obligations on fossil fuel production due to their consensus-based structure. The COP30 Presidency Roadmap, led by Brazil, serves as a non-binding, non-negotiated forum to facilitate political dialogue and identify barriers to transition. The proposed Fossil Fuel Treaty seeks to fill the governance gap by establishing binding, supply-side commitments through a coalition of high-ambition states, focusing on ending new project expansion, implementing a science-based phase-out, and providing just transition finance.

The report analyzes the limitations of the UNFCCC's consensus-based model and the non-binding nature of Brazil's COP30 Roadmap, arguing for a binding Fossil Fuel Treaty to regulate supply and ensure a just transition.

The briefing compares three pathways for a just transition from fossil fuels. It notes that while the UNFCCC provides a universal framework for emissions, it lacks explicit obligations for fossil fuel production. Brazil's COP30 'Roadmap' serves as a non-binding political dialogue to identify transition barriers. The proposed Fossil Fuel Treaty aims to fill governance gaps through binding commitments to end new project expansion, implement science-based phase-outs, and provide financial support for affected communities.