Search Climate Insights Directory

The report finds that while most countries are reducing coal proposals, global operating capacity grew by 48.4 GW in 2023, primarily driven by China. It highlights a stark divergence between China's construction surge and a record low in new starts elsewhere, while noting that only 15% of global operating coal capacity has a Paris-aligned retirement commitment.

The document argues that superhot rock energy could be a ubiquitous, low-land-footprint renewable source capable of replacing fossil fuel generation. Preliminary modeling suggests that approximately 20% of U.S. land area has superhot rock potential at depths below 8 miles, with just 1% of this resource potentially providing 4.3 terawatts of energy capacity. The report highlights that the U.S. oil and gas sector's subsurface expertise could accelerate commercialization, and that mature plants could eventually offer electricity as low as $25-40 per MWh.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) asserts that the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement do not exhaustively define State obligations regarding climate change. Instead, States are bound by concurrent duties under customary international law (such as the prevention of transboundary harm), human rights law, and the law of State responsibility. CIEL argues that the cumulative emission of greenhouse gases, primarily from fossil fuels, constitutes an internationally wrongful act. Consequently, responsible States—particularly industrialized nations—must cease their destructive conduct and provide full reparation for material and moral injuries. The submission emphasizes that these obligations extend to future generations, grounded in the principle of intergenerational equity and the precautionary principle, which mandates prioritizing proven emission reductions over speculative technologies.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) submits that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) should interpret State climate obligations through a harmonized lens of multiple legal frameworks. CIEL contends that while the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement are relevant, they do not displace other primary rules such as the duty to prevent transboundary harm, human rights law, the law of the sea, or the law of State responsibility. The document asserts that these obligations apply concurrently and that compliance with climate treaties alone does not discharge a State's broader duties under international law, particularly regarding human rights and the protection of the marine environment.

The document asserts that because fossil fuels are the primary driver of climate change, States' duties to prevent transboundary harm and protect human rights necessitate a rapid phase-out of oil, gas, and coal. It argues that due diligence requires States to conduct environmental impact assessments (EIAs) that include downstream 'Scope 3' emissions, regardless of where they occur. Furthermore, it contends that State actions increasing fossil fuel reliance are presumptively contrary to international law and that the precautionary principle obliges States to prioritize proven emission reductions over speculative technologies like carbon capture and storage.

The document asserts that high-emitting States have breached international obligations to prevent significant transboundary harm and protect human rights by allowing cumulative greenhouse gas emissions to degrade the global climate system. It argues that these breaches constitute internationally wrongful acts under the law of State responsibility, requiring States to cease wrongful conduct and provide full reparation—including restitution, compensation, and satisfaction—for material and moral injuries. The memorandum emphasizes that international climate agreements like the Paris Agreement do not preclude these reparations and suggests that the burden of proof for causation should shift to responsible States given the available attribution science.

The document details the case of Do-Hyun Kim et al. v. South Korea, where 19 members of 'Youth4ClimateAction' challenged the constitutionality of the Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth. The applicants argue that the government's failure to maintain sufficient greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets violates rights to human dignity, equality, and a healthy environment. Specifically, they contest the President's authority to modify targets via decree, claiming it constitutes an unconstitutional 'blanket delegation' of power and fails to meet the minimum protective measures required to mitigate climate change impacts, which are noted to be particularly severe in South Korea.

The Climate Bonds Initiative offers technical assistance to prospective debt issuers and asset managers to navigate sustainable finance. Their services include ESG readiness assessments, pre-issuance support for labelled and transition-themed bonds, framework reviews, and post-issuance impact reporting guidance. The organization leverages its role as a standards setter and database curator to provide industry benchmarking and alignment with 1.5-degree emissions pathways.

The Electrical Utilities Criteria establish requirements for the certification of electrical utilities and their debt instruments, focusing on a transition to net-zero emissions by 2050. The framework employs an entity-level approach to assess the decarbonisation of the entire electricity value chain, including generation, transmission, and distribution. Certification requires entities to meet a global emission intensity pathway and adhere to specific fossil fuel phase-out benchmarks, which vary between advanced and emerging economies. The criteria prohibit new investments in fossil fuel power generation and mandate a total phase-out of fossil fuel generation by 2040 at the latest. To support grid security, the criteria allow the replacement of coal with fossil gas under strict conditions, provided the entity maintains its emission intensity pathway and has a phase-out plan. Eligible mitigation measures for Use-of-Proceeds (UoP) bonds include retrofitting plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS), carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS), or cofiring with low-carbon synthetic fuels and biomass. Certification is available in two tiers: 'align' for those meeting the pathway at the time of certification, and 'transition' for those meeting it by the end of 2030.

The report analyzes the sustainability-linked bond (SLB) market, finding that while it is diversifying, a high share of deals lack ambition and credibility. Key issues include partial GHG scope coverage, a lack of science-based targets, and poor post-issuance reporting. The report introduces the Climate Bonds SLB Database (SLBDB) to identify aligned deals and provides a best-practice checklist for issuers, emphasizing the need for material KPIs, transparent transition plans, and robust financial penalties.

The document analyzes the limitations of both shareholder engagement and full divestment in the oil and gas sector, citing recent moves by Dutch pension funds PFZW and ABP. It argues that while divestment may not provide immediate financial pressure on companies, total withdrawal removes necessary levers of influence. Reclaim Finance proposes a strategy of stopping new capital injections (specifically new bonds) while using voting rights to block 'climaticide' strategies, including voting against director re-elections and dividend distributions.

Reclaim Finance argues that neither passive engagement nor complete divestment is sufficient to force oil and gas companies to align with the Paris Agreement. Instead, it advocates for a 'third way' where investors stop purchasing new bonds but retain shareholdings to vote against directors, manager remuneration, and dividends at 2024 annual general meetings. The organization highlights that 96% of oil and gas producing companies continue to open new fields and that record profits are being prioritized for shareholder remuneration over the energy transition.

The Climate Bonds Standard version 4.1 provides a science-based framework for certifying Use of Proceeds (UoP) debt instruments, physical assets, non-financial legal entities, and sustainability-linked debt (SLD). Certification requires alignment with sector-specific criteria and independent verification by Approved Verifiers. For entities and SLDs, the standard emphasizes 'Hallmarks' of a credibly transitioning company, including Paris-aligned targets, robust transition plans, and public disclosure. The framework includes strict exclusions for the parent group regarding fossil fuel expansion and high-carbon-stock land conversion.

ClientEarth submits evidence to the UK Work and Pensions Committee arguing that current fiduciary duty legislation is too narrow, leading trustees to prioritise short-term returns over systemic climate risk management. The organisation recommends statutory duties to manage risks to the portfolio as a whole and to assess the real-world impacts of investments on society and the environment, aligning UK practice with European standards and UN human rights principles.

The document explains the distinction between cap-and-trade systems (ETS) and baseline-and-credit mechanisms, detailing the evolution from Kyoto Protocol markets to the Paris Agreement's Article 6. It critiques carbon offsetting for enabling greenwashing and failing to reduce absolute emissions, while highlighting the specific shortcomings of CORSIA and REDD+. The guide advocates for a shift toward a 'climate contribution' approach where credits are cancelled without offsetting claims to support global climate action.

The document explains the distinction between emissions trading systems (ETS) and carbon credit attribution mechanisms, detailing the evolution from the Kyoto Protocol to the Paris Agreement. It critically assesses the effectiveness of various market mechanisms, including Article 6.2 and 6.4, CORSIA, and REDD+, highlighting systemic risks such as 'hot air', double counting, and greenwashing. The guide argues against the use of offsets for carbon neutrality and proposes a 'climate contribution' approach instead.

The document explains the difference between cap-and-trade systems and carbon credit mechanisms, detailing the evolution from the Kyoto Protocol to the Paris Agreement. It critiques carbon offsetting as a tool for greenwashing and argues for a shift toward 'climate contributions' where credits are retired without claims of neutrality.

The document serves as a comprehensive primer on carbon markets, distinguishing between emissions trading systems (cap-and-trade) and credit-based mechanisms. It details the evolution from the Kyoto Protocol's mechanisms to the Paris Agreement's Article 6, while critically assessing the risks of carbon offsetting, such as 'greenwashing' and the 'hot air' problem. The guide also examines the CORSIA framework for aviation and the private certification standards of the voluntary market, ultimately advocating for a shift from offsetting to a 'climate contribution' model.

The document argues that traditional carbon offsetting and 'neutrality' claims are scientifically illogical and misleading. It proposes the BVCM model, where companies provide climate finance as a complement to—not a substitute for—internal decarbonisation. It outlines prerequisites for credible claims, including science-based targets, deforestation-free commitments, and Paris-aligned lobbying, while evaluating different internal carbon pricing methods and investment vehicles like impact funds and direct financing.

A coalition of civil society organizations is urging 50 financial institutions to pressure TotalEnergies, ExxonMobil, Santos, and ENEOS to cancel the Papua LNG project. The letter argues the project is incompatible with the 1.5-degree goal of the Paris Agreement, lacks the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) of Indigenous Peoples, and employs insufficient biodiversity offsetting measures. The authors call for shareholders to vote against director re-elections, stop purchasing new bonds, and establish a time-bound divestment strategy if fossil fuel expansion continues.