Search Climate Insights Directory

The Supreme Court of Nepal ordered the government to enact a new climate change law after finding that the Environmental Protection Act of 1997 was inadequate for mitigation and adaptation. The court ruled that inaction violated constitutional rights to a dignified life and a healthy environment, as well as international commitments under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. Following the decision, Nepal passed the Environment Protection Act of 2019 and the Forests Act of 2019.

The document details the priorities for the second week of COP26, highlighting the critical role of nature-based solutions, the need for a functional Enhanced Transparency Framework, and the funding gap for adaptation and loss and damage. It emphasizes the necessity of integrating science and gender equity into climate action, the decarbonization of the built environment and transport sectors, and the urgent need for tangible financial commitments and representation for Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and Indigenous peoples.

Recourse urges Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) to stop all direct and indirect fossil fuel financing and to commit to ambitious climate finance targets at COP26. The statement argues that current pledges, such as the MDBs' $175 billion commitment by 2025, are inadequate. It specifically criticizes the World Bank for promoting gas as a transition fuel through Development Policy Finance, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) for a portfolio where fossil fuel spending nearly doubles renewable energy spending, and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) for approving nearly $5 billion in gas project financing since the Paris Agreement. Recourse also calls for the World Bank to match the African Development Bank's pledge of 75 million new off-grid connections by 2025 to address energy deficits in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The document outlines a framework for integrating gender equality into climate finance projects, emphasizing the need for local expertise, robust baseline data, and continuity between project design and implementation. It provides specific recommendations for project teams and climate funds, supported by case studies from various sectors and regions.

China's commitment to cease overseas coal financing could remove two-thirds of the pre-construction coal pipeline in Asia, reducing it from over 65 GW to 22 GW. This shift, aligned with similar pledges from Japan, South Korea, and G20 nations, makes the remaining projects unlikely to be completed due to a lack of available capital. The report argues that cancelling these remaining projects would save US$27 billion in capital costs and avoid 103 million tons of annual CO2 emissions.

The analysis reveals that the COVID-19 pandemic has widened the climate finance gap in developing countries, leading to domestic budget reallocations away from climate projects toward health and economic recovery. International climate finance has also decreased, with a higher reliance on loans that increase national debt burdens. The report highlights that climate-finance needs, estimated at $4.6 trillion based on a sample of NDCs, far exceed current flows, and that pandemic-related restrictions have delayed the approval and execution of critical climate projects.

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 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.

A coalition of NGOs, including Reclaim Finance and Urgewald, wrote to the CEOs of ten insurance companies (including Allianz, AXA, and Munich Re) demanding they stop insuring the Brunsbüttel LNG terminal in northern Germany. The authors argue that the project, promoted by Gasunie, will lock in greenhouse gas emissions for 30–50 years, contradicting the 1.5°C goal and risking the creation of a stranded asset. They highlight that the project costs €450 million, with up to €100 million from German taxpayers, and faces significant opposition from environmental groups and market analysts.

The document establishes a direct link between gender-based development pillars—specifically secondary education for girls and access to modern contraception—and the capacity of vulnerable populations to adapt to climate change. It highlights that women in low- and middle-income countries face disproportionate climate impacts, which often trigger a cycle of early marriage and school dropout. The brief provides evidence that education reduces disaster vulnerability and that family planning improves maternal and child health, thereby increasing household resilience. It concludes that these strategies are largely absent from National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and calls for their integration into climate finance and policy frameworks.

The document identifies girls' education and family planning as critical, yet overlooked, long-term strategies for climate adaptation. It details how these interventions reduce vulnerability to natural disasters, improve agricultural productivity, and enhance overall community resilience. The authors call for these components to be formally included in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), supported by dedicated climate finance.

The document assesses the proliferation of gas power plants, pipelines, and LNG terminals across East, South, and Southeast Asia. It contends that these investments, totaling $380 billion, risk becoming stranded assets as renewable energy costs plummet and climate targets necessitate a rapid shift away from fossil fuels. The report highlights the significant carbon budget impact of these projects and the continued role of public finance in supporting gas expansion despite net-zero pledges.

The report analyzes the planned expansion of gas infrastructure in Asia, including power plants, pipelines, and LNG terminals, totaling $379 billion. It argues that this expansion risks locking in high greenhouse gas emissions, potentially consuming a quarter of the global carbon budget for a 1.5°C limit. The document highlights that falling costs of renewable energy and high price volatility of LNG make these gas investments economically risky and likely to become stranded assets. It further criticizes the continued support of public financial institutions for gas projects and advocates for a transition to clean energy portfolios.

The report analyzes plans for US$379 billion in new gas infrastructure across Asia, including 320 GW of power plants and 452 mtpa of LNG import capacity. It argues that this expansion would consume a quarter of the global carbon budget for a 1.5°C limit and warns that these assets may become economically unviable due to the falling cost of renewables and LNG price volatility. The author calls for a redirection of public finance away from gas to align with net-zero goals.

The report argues that the planned $379 billion expansion of gas infrastructure in Asia threatens the global goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C and risks creating stranded assets. It highlights that the region is planning 320 GW of new gas-fired power and 452 mtpa of LNG import capacity, which could emit up to 117 Gt CO2-eq over their lifespans. The document contends that renewable energy is now a more cost-effective and reliable alternative, and calls for the redirection of public finance away from gas to support net-zero goals.

The report identifies a massive planned expansion of gas infrastructure in Asia, including 320 GW of power plants and 452 mtpa of LNG import capacity, valued at 379 billion USD. It argues these investments risk becoming stranded assets as renewable energy costs plummet and climate targets necessitate a rapid decline in fossil fuel use. The document highlights that the projected emissions from this infrastructure could consume 25% of the remaining global carbon budget for 1.5°C. It further criticizes the continued role of public financial institutions in funding these projects, suggesting a shift toward clean energy portfolios as a more secure and sustainable alternative.

The report analyzes the expansion of gas power plants, pipelines, and LNG terminals across East, South, and Southeast Asia, totaling $379 billion in planned investments. It argues that this expansion is incompatible with the 1.5°C climate goal, as the resulting emissions could consume 25% of the global carbon budget. The document highlights the economic risk of these projects becoming stranded assets due to the falling cost of renewable energy and the volatility of LNG prices. It concludes that clean energy portfolios, combining renewables with storage and demand management, are more cost-effective and secure alternatives to gas.

The report identifies a massive planned expansion of gas infrastructure in Asia, totaling US$379 billion, which includes 320 GW of power plants, 63,000 km of pipelines, and 452 mtpa of LNG import capacity. It argues that this expansion would consume approximately one-quarter of the global carbon budget required to limit warming to 1.5°C and warns that these projects are economically risky compared to cheaper renewable alternatives. The document highlights the role of public financing from institutions like the Export-Import Bank of China and the Asian Development Bank in sustaining this growth, while urging a shift toward clean energy portfolios.

The report describes the 'Blue Acceleration,' a phenomenal increase in the diversity and scale of ocean-based industries since 2000. It argues that while the ocean is viewed as an economic frontier, the benefits flow disproportionately to a small number of powerful states and corporations, leaving SIDS and LDCs exposed to risks. The document details the environmental and social impacts of sectors like offshore wind, deep-sea mining, and industrial fishing, while highlighting the emergence of interconnected 'Anthropocene risks' including climate-driven regime shifts and stranded assets. It concludes by exploring the role of sustainable finance in redirecting the ocean economy toward equity and stewardship.

The report examines how gender norms and power dynamics influence vulnerability and adaptive capacity in the ocean economy of SIDS and coastal LDCs. It highlights the undervalued roles of women in small-scale fisheries and tourism and analyzes how climate change, market shifts, and COVID-19 disproportionately affect women due to socio-economic structures. The document advocates for the systematic collection of sex-disaggregated data, the implementation of gender-transformative policies, and the alignment of international finance, such as Official Development Assistance (ODA) and climate risk insurance, with gender equality goals to enhance overall community resilience.