Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that while green taxonomies are not a standalone solution for financing the energy transition, they serve as a critical 'building block' for establishing credibility and standardising green definitions to attract international investment. It highlights the tension between 'interoperability'—the ability for taxonomies to work across borders—and 'usability'—the practical application within local contexts where data may be limited. The brief recommends a phased approach, starting with climate mitigation and incorporating adaptation and resilience objectives using international guidance to avoid fragmentation. It emphasizes that taxonomies must be integrated into broader policy frameworks, including de-risking tools and currency hedging, to effectively steer capital toward sustainable activities in emerging economies.

The report details how 'Big Meat and Dairy' companies employ tactics similar to those of the tobacco and fossil fuel industries to avoid environmental regulation. These strategies include 'greenwashing' through weak net-zero targets, funding industry-biased research to minimize the impact of methane emissions, and aggressive lobbying to prevent binding legislation. The document highlights a pattern of 'carrot-only' approaches where companies promote voluntary technological fixes while spending more on advertising than on actual R&D for low-carbon solutions. A detailed case study on Italy reveals the use of transnational far-right narratives and online disinformation to frame cultivated meat as a threat to tradition and health, thereby supporting legislative bans.

The report argues that 'Big Meat and Dairy' corporations employ strategies similar to those of the tobacco and fossil fuel industries to avoid environmental accountability. It identifies three primary tactics: distraction through greenwashing and targeting Gen Z; delaying action by promoting voluntary technical solutions over systemic dietary changes; and derailing legislation through political lobbying and 'revolving doors' between industry and government. The analysis covers 22 major corporations across four continents, finding that none meet UN integrity standards for climate goals. Specific case studies highlight how these tactics have weakened the EU's Green Deal and Farm to Fork strategy, influenced the US Inflation Reduction Act, and blocked agricultural emission regulations in New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, and Italy.

The memorandum examines the ITLOS advisory opinion, which establishes that anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions constitute marine pollution under UNCLOS. It highlights the 'stringent' due diligence required of States to protect the marine environment, the role of the best available science (specifically IPCC reports), and the principle that the Paris Agreement does not supersede UNCLOS obligations. The document also discusses the necessity of environmental impact assessments that account for cumulative and socio-economic impacts, and cautions against marine geoengineering that might transform pollution types.

The memorandum examines the ITLOS advisory opinion, which establishes that anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions constitute marine pollution under UNCLOS. It highlights the 'stringent' due diligence required of States to protect the marine environment, the role of the best available science (IPCC), and the principle that the Paris Agreement does not supersede UNCLOS obligations. The document further discusses the necessity of environmental impact assessments that account for cumulative and socio-economic impacts, and cautions against the use of marine geoengineering if it transforms pollution types.

The report argues that the World Bank Group, Asian Development Bank, and Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank have policy gaps regarding 'captive coal'—coal plants dedicated to industrial facilities. It highlights how these loopholes risk funding carbon-intensive processing of minerals like nickel, which are essential for the energy transition, thereby undermining global climate goals.

A panel of over 30 experts analyzed claims from the June 27, 2024, France 2 legislative debate, focusing on immigration, security, economy, and environment. The analysis identifies several inaccuracies, including claims about France's global CO2 emissions, the efficiency of wind turbines, and the relationship between immigration and insecurity.

Reclaim Finance, BankTrack, SteelWatch, and the Fair Steel Coalition have sent a letter to 21 banks that finance ArcelorMittal, the world's second-largest steel company. The coalition alerts these financiers to risks and adverse impacts documented in two reports: 'The Real Co$t of Steel', which details violence against environmental defenders and neglect of worker health in South Africa, Liberia, Mexico, and Brazil, and the 'ArcelorMittal Corporate Climate Assessment 2024', which finds the company is not aligned with a 1.5C scenario and is investing in coal-based steel production. The letter demands that banks require ArcelorMittal to publish concrete action plans, adopt a 1.5-aligned Climate Action Plan, and perform enhanced due diligence. Additionally, the coalition calls on banks to adopt sectoral policies to restrict financing for coal-based steelmaking, specifically ending services for new blast furnaces and the relining of existing ones.

A coalition of environmental organizations, including Greenpeace and Reclaim Finance, responded to the French Senate's inquiry into TotalEnergies. While they welcome the report's critical assessment of TotalEnergies' "climaticide" strategy and its expansion of fossil fuels, they argue that the 33 recommendations lack the binding measures necessary to align the company with the Paris Agreement. The associations specifically criticize the absence of super-profit taxation and the perceived weakness of the French state in regulating the multinational.

The document serves as a '101' guide for journalists to report on climate change, explaining the difference between weather and climate, the primary causes of global warming, and the impacts of extreme weather. It offers specific phrasing to help reporters connect current events to climate change and distinguishes between mitigation and adaptation strategies. Additionally, it provides professional guidance on avoiding greenwashing, handling climate deniers, and centering climate justice in reporting, while emphasizing that climate coverage is based on scientific consensus rather than activism.

The document serves as an introductory resource for journalists to understand the causes and impacts of climate change and how to report on them accurately. It defines key terms, explains the role of greenhouse gases and fossil fuels, and details the effects of warming on weather patterns. The guide offers specific phrasing to help reporters connect extreme weather events to human-caused climate change and distinguishes between mitigation and adaptation strategies. It also outlines international and national policy frameworks, such as the Paris Agreement and the US Inflation Reduction Act, while advising journalists on how to avoid pitfalls like greenwashing and the platforming of climate deniers.

A group of scientists and researchers calls on Citi to cease financing fossil fuel expansion, citing the bank's role as the second-largest financier of fossil fuels since the Paris Agreement. The authors argue that such financing exacerbates the climate crisis and disproportionately harms frontline communities, specifically mentioning impacts in the US, the Amazon, and the Niger delta. They demand a phase-out of coal, oil, and gas financing, an end to LNG project funding, increased investment in renewable energy, and restitution for the bank's role in fueling climate chaos.

The briefing argues that current oil and gas production trajectories are incompatible with the Paris Agreement, with projected production by 2050 potentially exceeding 1.5°C-aligned needs by 260% for oil and 210% for gas. It advocates for a coordinated global phase-out led by the G7 and G20, emphasizing that new extraction projects must cease immediately. The author highlights the necessity of climate finance, noting a gap between current annual climate finance (USD 1.3 trillion) and the required green transition investment for emerging and developing economies (USD 2.4 trillion). To ensure equity, the document suggests assessing transition capacity based on GDP per capita, government revenue shares from fossil fuels, and workforce employment in the sector, while calling for the phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies and the implementation of innovative funding, such as taxes on fossil fuel company revenues.

The document evaluates civil society engagement during the 2020-2021 NDC revision process in Mozambique, South Africa, and Zambia. It identifies significant barriers to inclusivity, including the digital divide during COVID-19, technical complexity of climate policy, and inadequate government communication. To improve the 2025 revisions, the briefing recommends diversifying engagement methods (such as 'imbizo' gatherings), enhancing technical capacity for civil society organisations (CSOs), and fostering regional peer learning to protect the livelihoods of marginalised communities.

An analysis by Reclaim Finance and RIFT finds that most French life insurers continue to fund fossil fuel expansion through 'fonds euro' and 'unités de compte', with over 55% of 'responsible' or 'ESG' labeled funds exposed to fossil fuel developers.

The document assesses the viability of Canada's planned LNG expansion, concluding that it is incompatible with 1.5°C global warming targets and economically precarious. It highlights that new facilities would increase domestic emissions and divert clean energy resources. Economically, the brief warns of a global supply glut by 2030, with Canadian projects struggling to compete against lower-cost producers in Qatar and the United States, thereby risking significant losses for taxpayers and investors.

The Climate Bonds Standard version 4.2 provides a science-based framework for certifying climate-aligned investments. It covers four primary certification paths: Use of Proceeds (UoP) debt instruments, specific assets, non-financial legal entities, and sustainability-linked debt (SLD). Certification requires independent verification by approved third parties and adherence to sector-specific criteria. For entities and SLDs, the standard emphasizes absolute measures tied to transition pathways, requiring climate mitigation performance targets (CMPTs) and robust transition plans. The standard also includes a specialized certification for agri-food entities focusing on deforestation- and conversion-free sourcing.

The report argues that labelled transition finance is currently stalled by 'transition-washing'—where finance is provided to entities without a credible plan to reach net zero. It identifies root causes such as a lack of scientifically robust, geography-specific emissions pathways and the prevalence of non-binding voluntary standards. Using sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs) and Japanese transition-labelled bonds as case studies, the author highlights issues like unambitious targets, immaterial penalties, and reliance on non-credible technologies like ammonia co-firing. To address this, the report recommends six guardrails: preparing national Paris-aligned pathways, establishing robust classification standards, building external verification capacity, implementing mandatory regulatory thresholds for protected labels, empowering regulators to penalise transition-washing, and enacting systemic reforms such as mandating transition plans for large firms.

The document asserts that UN REDD+ was not designed as a market mechanism and lacks the necessary requirements for additionality, permanence, and robust quantification to qualify as high-quality carbon credits under Article 6.2. It highlights that while ITMOs have stronger reporting and anti-double-counting rules, neither system provides sufficient third-party verification or monitoring after activity conclusion. The author concludes that forest-related activities are ill-suited for offsetting due to inflated baselines and risks of non-permanence, urging a shift toward non-market-based financing.

The report finds that Canadian institutions provided between CAD 7.6 billion and CAD 13.5 billion annually to the fossil fuel sector from 2020 to 2022, while providing only CAD 147 million annually for domestic renewable energy. It identifies Export Development Canada (EDC) as the primary provider of this finance and highlights a critical lack of transparency in reporting. The authors recommend a comprehensive policy that covers the entire fossil fuel life cycle, includes existing investments like the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion, and precludes funding for carbon capture and storage (CCS) and blue hydrogen. The report suggests redirecting these funds toward clean electricity and Indigenous-led generation to support Canada's energy transition.