Search Climate Insights Directory

The document identifies four primary areas of negotiation for COP24: resolving the impasse on climate finance, standardizing the communication of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), establishing a timetable for the Enhanced Transparency Framework, and defining the outcomes of the Talanoa Dialogue in light of the IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C.

The We Mean Business Coalition argues that vague NDCs hinder the ability of the private sector to invest in a clean energy economy. The coalition calls for the standardization of data—including base years, target years, and IPCC methodologies—and requests clarity on the domestic legislation and financial measures intended to implement these targets to ensure a just transition and a predictable regulatory environment.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) faces a crisis of confidence as it nears the end of its first funding period. The World Resources Institute outlines five key priorities for the GCF Board's final 2018 meeting in Bahrain: approving a record 20 funding proposals worth $1.1 billion, accrediting 16 new partners while managing capacity constraints, establishing a process for the fund's first replenishment, reforming decision-making to move beyond a strict unanimity-based consensus model, and conducting a comprehensive performance review of its portfolio.

The report finds that while more than six in ten Americans are worried about global warming in 2018, feelings of hope have declined since 2010. Hope is identified as a key driver for individual and political action. Despite this, the report highlights strong public support for renewable energy research, carbon taxes, and climate education, alongside the growth of the clean energy workforce and institutional commitments to the Paris Climate Agreement.

The report concludes that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) largely failed its objectives of producing high-quality, additional emission reductions and promoting sustainable development. It highlights systemic issues such as a lack of environmental integrity, perverse incentives for pollutant production, and the absence of social safeguards. Through four case studies in Uganda, India, Chile, and Guatemala, the document demonstrates how CDM projects led to land grabs, pollution, and the violation of indigenous and community rights. It recommends that post-2020 climate targets should not use CDM credits and that future mechanisms, such as the Sustainable Development Mechanism under the Paris Agreement, must incorporate binding stakeholder consultations and independent grievance mechanisms.

The report finds that while Canada's GDP has grown, its comprehensive wealth—comprising produced, natural, human, financial, and social capital—has grown much more slowly and shows signs of fragility. Key concerns include a lack of growth in human capital, the depletion of market natural assets, and an increasing concentration of produced capital in housing and oil and gas infrastructure. The document advocates for the regular measurement of comprehensive wealth by Statistics Canada to better guide long-term policy decisions and address threats like climate change.

The report argues that Canada's long-term prosperity is fragile, as its comprehensive wealth has grown significantly slower than its GDP. While Canada possesses high levels of natural capital, it faces risks from household debt, climate change, and an over-concentration of produced capital in housing and oil and gas infrastructure. The authors advocate for the official adoption of comprehensive wealth measurement to shift policy focus from short-term gains to long-term sustainability.

The report examines downstream beneficiation—the domestic processing of raw materials—noting that policies are often driven by political goals rather than economic analysis. It identifies key prerequisites for success, including guaranteed market demand, infrastructure, and inexpensive energy, while arguing that proximity to raw materials is increasingly less important than proximity to consumers. The document analyzes five policy options: incentives, prescriptive measures, negotiations, bidding, and government-led investments, highlighting that without a strong business case, these can lead to inefficient 'white elephant' projects. It concludes with recommendations for governments to use market and cost-benefit analyses, including considerations for environmental externalities and the risk of stranded assets in the oil and gas sector due to global decarbonization targets.

The report evaluates fossil fuel companies using a scoring guide that measures corporate political disclosure, engagement with Congress, and support for climate policies. It finds a wide disparity in performance, with some companies like ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil receiving 'Good' scores for their policy frameworks, while others like CONSOL Energy and Arch Coal are rated 'Egregious' or 'Poor' due to their opposition to the Paris Agreement or lack of political transparency.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) developed a methodology to assess eight major investor-owned oil, gas, and coal companies on their climate responsibility. The assessment uses 28 metrics across four broad areas: renouncing disinformation, planning for a carbon-free world, supporting effective climate policies, and disclosing climate risks. Companies are scored on a five-point scale from 'advanced' to 'egregious' based on publicly available data from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2018.

The Union of Concerned Scientists' 2018 Climate Accountability Scorecard Appendix C evaluates fossil fuel companies based on their commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, use of internal carbon pricing, and transparency in reporting. The assessment finds that most companies, including ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Peabody Energy, have insufficient plans aligned with the Paris Agreement. While some companies like BP and Royal Dutch Shell have implemented internal carbon prices of $40 per tonne, the report highlights a general lack of comprehensive, company-wide net-zero targets and detailed disclosure of low-carbon research and development investments.

The report provides a scoring framework and detailed evaluations for eight fossil fuel companies—Arch Coal, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, CONSOL Energy, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy, and Royal Dutch Shell—regarding their public statements on climate science, trade association affiliations, governance policies, and responses to shareholder resolutions. It identifies a systemic failure among these companies to implement policies preventing the spread of climate disinformation, with most receiving 'Poor' or 'Egregious' scores. The document also catalogues historical and recent disinformation activities by trade associations such as the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) found that while Chevron improved its emissions and political spending disclosures, it continues to misrepresent climate science, maintain leadership roles in trade groups that spread disinformation, and lacks a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from its operations or products.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) found that while ExxonMobil improved its scores in some areas—such as leaving the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and supporting a federal carbon tax—it continues to misrepresent climate science and maintain leadership roles in trade groups that spread disinformation. The company lacks a company-wide net-zero emissions target and has actively blocked climate-related shareholder resolutions.

The Union of Concerned Scientists evaluated Peabody Energy's climate actions from July 2016 to June 2018, finding that while the company follows best practices in political spending disclosure, it remains 'egregious' in its lack of emissions reduction targets and its support for the US withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement. The company is criticized for downplaying climate science in public statements and maintaining leadership roles in trade associations that spread climate disinformation.

The 2018 Climate Accountability Scorecard evaluates eight major oil, gas, and coal companies, finding that while some have made minor improvements due to shareholder and legal pressure, their overall actions remain insufficient to align with the Paris climate agreement. The report highlights continued reliance on trade associations that spread disinformation and a systemic failure to set company-wide net-zero emissions targets.

The 2018 Climate Accountability Scorecard evaluates Royal Dutch Shell's response to climate change, noting that while the company acknowledges climate science and supports the Paris Agreement in principle, it lacks a concrete net-zero action plan and maintains ties to industry groups that spread climate disinformation.

The document examines the role of Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) in supporting the Paris Agreement's temperature goals. It reviews scientific scenarios and existing MDB tools to propose approaches for aligning portfolios, specifically targeting direct project investments, financial intermediaries, and policy-based lending within the energy supply and transport sectors.

The briefing examines the intersection of poverty eradication and climate action, arguing that the "leave no one behind" (LNB) principle is essential for ensuring that the poorest populations—who are most vulnerable to climate impacts—benefit from and participate in the energy transition. It outlines four key implications for climate policy: including the poor in decision-making, targeting them as implementers of adaptation and mitigation, maximizing direct benefits for them, and providing compensatory measures to offset regressive impacts like carbon taxes. The author notes that while many Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) mention inequality, few contain concrete measures to realize these benefits, suggesting that upcoming NDC updates provide a critical opportunity to integrate LNB principles.

The document argues that businesses have a crucial role in achieving the 'net zero' emissions goal established by the Paris Agreement. It suggests that corporate leaders can influence policy and regulation through their insights and experience, while adapting their operations to meet evolving national, European, and international expectations for sustainable growth.