Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) should be terminated by 2020 to prevent it from undermining the Paris Agreement. The authors claim the CDM encourages a 'zero-sum game' that hinders domestic climate action, has increased global emissions due to 'junk' credits, and has led to human rights violations and inequitable benefit distribution.

The document highlights a systemic lack of integration between national low-emission development strategies (LEDS) and long-term adaptation plans, noting that neither typically accounts for the other's impacts or pathways.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment argues that Canada's history of missing greenhouse gas reduction targets necessitates a legislated accountability framework. While acknowledging the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change (PCF) as a first step, the authors contend that a proposed $20 million 'Institute' for expert advice is insufficient because it lacks legal permanence and a mandate for government response. They propose five specific requirements: enshrining accountability in law, creating a public expert committee, implementing 5-year carbon budgets, focusing the committee's mandate on assessing government progress, and requiring the government to formally respond to committee reports. The document cites the United Kingdom's 2008 Climate Change Act as a successful model of such transparency and accountability.

The document describes the Paris Agreement rulebook as the essential set of rules and guidelines required to implement the 2015 Paris Agreement. It highlights that while the Agreement established global temperature goals and the mechanism of nationally determined contributions (NDCs), it left the operational details—such as reporting standards, transparency of climate finance, and the balance between mitigation and adaptation—to be decided. The author notes that negotiations at COP 24 are complicated by the need to balance the responsibilities of developed and developing countries and the interlinked nature of transparency, the global stocktake, and compliance.

The report details the efforts and challenges of integrating human rights into the COP-24 outcomes, noting that while procedural participation in NDC planning was strengthened, substantive human rights references were often diluted or removed from final texts. It also documents the restriction of civil liberties by the Polish government during the conference and highlights specific policy areas, such as the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform and the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss & Damage, where human rights frameworks were maintained or advanced.

The document analyzes the financial and social implications of Morocco's butane gas subsidies, which cost approximately USD 967 million in 2017. It proposes a 'swap' strategy to transition from fossil fuel subsidies to investments in solar energy to mitigate the impact on low-income households and small farmers while meeting Paris Agreement goals.

The report details a workshop focused on aligning National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) with Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). It argues that while NDCs set high-level adaptation goals, the NAP process provides the technical and operational framework to implement, monitor, and translate these goals to local levels. Key findings indicate that most participating countries have not yet established direct links between the two processes, though all aspire to 'systematic alignment' where NDC adaptation content is derived directly from the NAP process. Challenges include institutional silos, differing timelines, and political economy factors, while opportunities include improved climate finance mobilization and reduced duplication of effort.

The report details a workshop focused on aligning National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) with Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). It argues that while NDCs set high-level goals, NAPs provide the technical and operational framework for implementation. Key findings highlight that most participating countries lack a direct link between these two processes and face challenges such as institutional silos, conflicting interests between mitigation and adaptation, and a lack of common monitoring and evaluation (M&E) frameworks. The document proposes a path toward 'systematic alignment' where NDC adaptation content is derived directly from the NAP process.

The report details a workshop focused on aligning National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) with Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). It argues that while NDCs set high-level goals, the NAP process serves as the operational mechanism to implement these goals at subnational and local levels. The document identifies significant institutional gaps, as many countries operate these processes in parallel without coordination. Key recommendations include establishing joint technical working groups, creating shared monitoring and evaluation frameworks, and developing technical guidelines to move from informal to systematic alignment.

The document argues that while there is significant global potential for policy coherence between the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda, this must be translated into national-level implementation. Using the NDC-SDG Connections tool, the authors analyzed over 7,000 climate activities, finding strong synergies in energy, agriculture, and water. However, it warns that trade-offs—such as bioenergy competing with food security for land—are rarely documented in policy papers and must be proactively managed to avoid maladaptation.

The document argues that Nature-based Solutions (NBS) can reduce disaster risk and provide lower-cost, resilient services when integrated with conventional gray infrastructure. It details specific NBS applications for coastal, urban, and river flooding, provides a framework for implementation, and outlines policy and financing mechanisms to scale these approaches.

The author contends that Horizon Europe, the EU's primary research and innovation financing tool for 2021-2027, requires a higher budget and stricter climate-proofing to support the transition to a carbon-neutral economy. Key recommendations include increasing the climate-spending target to at least 40%, explicitly excluding funding for fossil fuel projects, raising the total budget to €120 billion, and creating stronger synergies with the Innovation Fund to bridge the gap between research and market deployment.

The document examines the alignment between Vietnam's climate action framework and its 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda to identify opportunities for joint implementation and avoid duplication of effort, while also considering the role of NGOs.

The briefing identifies three central pillars for climate finance negotiations at COP24: the replenishment of dedicated funds, the creation of reporting guidelines for tracking financial flows, and the planning of a new collective quantified goal after 2025. It emphasizes the need for developed countries to scale up support, specifically through the Green Climate Fund, and to improve both ex-post reporting of past flows and ex-ante projections of future funding to build trust with developing nations.

The paper examines how the international linking of emissions trading systems (ETSs), which allows allowances to flow across borders and alter emission levels, should be accounted for under the Paris Agreement. Specifically, it focuses on the framework provided by Article 6.2 to ensure that such links are properly reflected in the achievement of nationally determined contributions (NDCs). The document notes that the European Union and Switzerland intend to use Article 6.2 to account for their ETS link.

The We Mean Business Coalition urges governments at COP24 to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy by setting bold targets and clear timelines. The coalition emphasizes the need for a just transition involving tripartite social dialogue and investment in worker retraining. Specifically, it calls for full government participation in the Talanoa Dialogue to update nationally determined contribution (NDC) targets and the creation of a strong Paris rulebook featuring a global stocktake, common NDC implementation periods, an enhanced transparency framework, and guidelines to protect carbon market integrity.

The Allianz Climate and Energy Monitor 2018 evaluates G20 nations on their investment attractiveness for renewable energy and their long-term decarbonization strategies. France is ranked as the most attractive destination, while Russia ranks last. The report finds that most G20 countries lack binding long-term strategies and sufficient renewable energy targets to meet the Paris Agreement goals, although some previous stragglers like Saudi Arabia and Turkey are improving their policy environments.

The paper advocates for limiting the production of coal, gas, and oil to increase climate policy ambition. It specifically highlights that California could substantially reduce global CO2 emissions and improve local environmental justice by stopping the issuance of permits for new oil wells.

The report analyzes transaction-level data to show that Export Development Canada (EDC) provides significant government-backed support to the oil and gas sector, which contradicts Canada's climate goals and the Paris Agreement.

The document outlines various mechanisms through which G20 nations can redirect public money—including subsidies, tax revenues, state-owned enterprise investments, and credit support—away from fossil fuels. It highlights specific national and regional successes, such as Indonesia's subsidy reforms and the EU's phase-out of coal mining subsidies, while emphasizing the need for a faster transition that protects vulnerable groups and ensures a just transition for workers.