Search Climate Insights Directory

The briefing advocates for the inclusion of long-term strategies in the first global stocktake (2021-2023) to ensure a comprehensive assessment of global ambition. It details how these strategies can enrich the information collection, technical assessment, and high-level output phases, ultimately guiding the evolution of future Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and supporting developing countries in overcoming barriers to long-term planning.

The author asserts that the United States' ability to lead globally on climate at COP26 depends on the passage of the Build Back Better Act. The text highlights the Clean Electricity Payment Program (CEPP) as a key mechanism for accelerating renewable energy deployment and notes that 17 companies and the America is All In coalition have urged Congress to prioritize these climate provisions. The document warns that without legislative progress, the US will remain viewed with skepticism by the international community following its previous withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.

The 2021 Production Gap Report finds that governments plan to produce significantly more fossil fuels by 2030 than is consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C or 2°C, with the gap remaining largely unchanged from previous assessments. While some G20 countries and multilateral development banks have reduced finance for fossil fuel production, over USD 300 billion in new funds have been directed toward fossil fuel activities since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, exceeding investments in clean energy.

The report advocates for a shift in urban development metrics toward the quality, reliability, and affordability of essential services to address the needs of over 1.2 billion under-served city dwellers. It identifies seven necessary transformations across infrastructure, service provision, data, employment, finance, land management, and governance to create more equitable and sustainable cities.

The authors contend that Russia's current climate pledges are insufficient and that the government must acknowledge the global shift away from coal to protect its coal-producing regions, particularly Kuzbass, from economic disruption. While Russia is a top global coal exporter, the authors warn that the collapse of the global coal development pipeline and policies like the EU's carbon border adjustment mechanism threaten the sector's viability. They advocate for proactive economic diversification and a managed phase-out to support workers and the global 1.5°C target.

The author contends that the lack of a formal, ministerial-level 'climate and trade' agenda at the WTO or UNFCCC leads to policy silos and trade tensions. To address this, the document proposes a coalition of approximately 40 trade ministers, including G20 members and diverse developing nations, to align trade flows with the Paris Agreement and ensure a just transition.

The global pipeline of proposed coal power plants has decreased by 76% since 2015. As of July 2021, 44 economies have formally committed to no new coal, while another 40 are positioned to do so because they have no projects in their pre-construction pipeline. However, 37 economies still consider new coal, with China, India, Viet Nam, Indonesia, Turkey, and Bangladesh accounting for 82% of the remaining global pipeline. The report provides detailed profiles of these economies, highlighting the role of Chinese financing and the impact of local opposition and environmental concerns in halting projects.

The Center for Climate Integrity asserts that ExxonMobil possessed internal knowledge of the catastrophic impacts of fossil fuels as early as the 1970s while simultaneously funding a decades-long campaign to discredit climate science. The statement highlights a discrepancy between internal scientific consensus and public advertorials, the use of 'shadow groups' to oppose government action, and the company's current production plans which contradict the goals of the Paris Agreement.

The Center for Climate Integrity asserts that the Chamber of Commerce has known about the dangers of fossil fuels since the 1980s but spent decades sowing doubt about climate science. The statement highlights the Chamber's role in the Global Climate Coalition, its lobbying efforts to weaken EPA regulations, and its financial support for politicians who oppose climate action, including funding a study used to justify the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.

ClientEarth argues that classifying natural gas as sustainable under the EU Taxonomy Regulation would violate the Paris Agreement, the European Climate Law, and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The organization contends that natural gas activities do not meet the 'climate change mitigation' criteria because they increase greenhouse gas emissions, particularly when methane leakages are considered. Furthermore, ClientEarth asserts that natural gas cannot be a 'transition' measure as feasible low-carbon alternatives exist and such investments risk locking in carbon-intensive assets and diverting funds from renewable energy.

The report argues that methane emissions from livestock are a critical 'blind spot' in climate policies. It finds that neither the 18 largest producing countries nor the 20 largest industry companies have set sufficient targets to reduce methane, often ignoring the necessity of reducing livestock numbers and meat consumption to meet Paris Agreement goals.

The report identifies a critical 'blind spot' in climate policy regarding livestock methane, finding that neither the largest producing nations nor the biggest meat and dairy companies have set targets aligned with the 45% reduction required by 2030 to limit global warming to 1.5°C. While some countries report emissions, most lack concrete action plans to transform food production and consumption. Similarly, an analysis of 20 global meat and dairy giants revealed poor performance, with none reporting methane emissions separately or establishing specific methane reduction targets.

The report identifies the livestock sector as a critical 'blind spot' in climate policy, noting that neither the largest meat and dairy producing nations nor the top 20 global corporations in these industries have set targets consistent with a 45% methane reduction by 2030. While some governments report emissions, few have concrete action plans to transform food production and consumption. Among the 20 largest companies, none report methane emissions separately, and only three include Scope 3 emissions in their targets. The document argues that technical fixes are insufficient and that a systemic transition toward healthier diets with fewer animal products is essential to meet Paris Agreement goals.

The document examines the legal frameworks governing shareholder resolutions in thirteen European countries, focusing on how investors can compel companies to adopt Paris-aligned climate strategies. It identifies a recurring tension between the general management powers of corporate Boards and the reserved rights of shareholders to amend a company's Articles of Association. The guide argues that framing climate 'asks'—such as net-zero commitments, transition plans, 'Say on Climate' votes, and lobbying disclosures—as amendments to the Articles of Association is often the most effective legal path to ensure resolutions are tabled at Annual General Meetings (AGMs). While the UK, Ireland, Spain, and Sweden are described as relatively simple jurisdictions for filing, others like France, Germany, and Austria require more nuanced framing to avoid infringing on Board competencies. The Netherlands is highlighted as the only jurisdiction among the thirteen where shareholders cannot legally compel a company to table a resolution without Board consent.

The Health and Climate Network argues that limiting global warming to 1.5°C is a critical action for global health. It advocates for a transition to renewable energy, sustainable transport, healthy diets, and climate-resilient health systems, noting that the health gains from the Paris Agreement would outweigh the financial costs of mitigation.

The report finds that while net zero commitments from private financial institutions have grown rapidly, reaching USD 93.3 trillion in assets, they often lack the interim targets, detailed transition plans, and specificity in regional or sectoral investment needed for genuine Paris alignment. It highlights a strong focus on coal divestment but a significant lag in phasing out oil and gas financing and addressing biodiversity loss.

The Framework for Sustainable Finance Integrity provides a technical set of 'Necessary Action' metrics across three categories—targets and objectives, implementation, and metrics and transparency—to align the financial sector with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. It identifies significant gaps between current leading practices of major financial coalitions and the scientific requirements for a viable net zero pathway, particularly regarding short-term emissions targets, the phase-out of all fossil fuel finance, and the integration of social justice and biodiversity into financial mandates.

The fact sheet details how six major corporate players—BP, Microsoft, Drax, IETA, BlackRock, and Shell—employ 'net zero' agendas to maintain business-as-usual operations. It contends that these entities promote 'false solutions' such as carbon offsets, BECCS, and hydrogen to delay emissions cuts at the source. The document further highlights the influence of these corporations on COP26 through sponsorship, lobbying, and participation in industry-led initiatives like the Race to Zero and the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets.

The document critiques the negotiations surrounding Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, specifically the market-based approaches in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.4. It argues that these mechanisms allow developed nations to avoid direct emission reductions and fail to provide necessary public finance to the global South. The author highlights risks such as double counting, lack of environmental integrity, and human rights abuses, including land grabbing and displacement of Indigenous Peoples. Friends of the Earth International advocates for the rejection of carbon markets in favor of non-market approaches (Article 6.8) and direct, grant-based public finance from Northern governments to Southern countries.

The document critiques the 'net zero' narrative promoted by the UK presidency of COP26, arguing that it ignores historical responsibility and relies on scientifically flawed assumptions about carbon removal. It warns that 'net zero' acts as a 'Trojan horse' for dangerous geoengineering and allows polluters to use carbon offsets to maintain business-as-usual emissions. The author calls for a shift toward 'real zero' targets, absolute emission reductions by the Global North, and the exclusion of corporate polluters from COP26.