Search Climate Insights Directory

The report highlights solar power as the primary engine of the global energy transition, noting it surpassed 2,000 TWh of generation in 2024 and doubles every three years. While emerging drivers such as data centres, EVs, and heat pumps have structurally increased electricity demand, clean generation is projected to grow fast enough to meet this demand and drive a structural decline in fossil fuels by 2030. Central to this shift is the progress in China and India, where clean power deployment is breaking the historical link between economic growth and fossil fuel expansion, potentially tipping the global balance toward a decline in fossil generation.

The report examines the 2024 power sectors of China, the US, EU, India, Russia, Japan, and Brazil. Key trends include China's massive solar growth despite record coal generation, the US's first-time transition to wind and solar overtaking coal, the EU's record decline in coal, and Brazil's high renewable share. While India and China continue to see demand growth met partly by coal, the EU and US show a stronger shift toward clean energy, though the US remains reliant on gas.

In 2024, global electricity demand rose by 4% to 30,856 TWh, driven largely by China and extreme heatwaves. Low-carbon sources reached a historic high of 40.9% of global generation, with solar and wind combined surpassing hydropower. Despite this, global power sector emissions hit a record high, increasing by 1.6% due to a rise in fossil generation linked to cooling demand during heatwaves.

The document reports a decline in Chinese crude oil consumption and LNG imports, alongside significant economic and regulatory volatility in the US oil and gas sector. It highlights corporate shifts at Shell and BP, the risk of USD 2.3 trillion in stranded fossil fuel assets, and various international developments in LNG and carbon capture.

The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) requires that commodities and products be produced in accordance with the local laws of the country of production. This briefing argues that the 'legality requirement' must be interpreted broadly, encompassing all laws—including customary and human rights laws—that affect the legal status of the area of production and its surrounding environment. It emphasizes that due diligence cannot rely solely on official government records, especially in jurisdictions with high corruption or weak law enforcement, and must instead incorporate verification from local experts and civil society stakeholders.

The document examines the legal framework and compliance risks for soy and cattle in Brazil under the EUDR. It highlights systemic issues including land grabbing, illegal deforestation, and labour violations, while warning EU companies that official records and third-party certifications are often insufficient for due diligence.

The document analyzes the EUDR's legality requirement, arguing that it encompasses all laws affecting the legal status of production areas, including human rights and customary laws. It highlights systemic risks such as land grabbing, corruption, and weak enforcement in Brazil, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Indonesia, and recommends that EU companies move beyond official records to consult local experts and stakeholders to verify compliance.

The document outlines the challenges of verifying legal compliance in global agricultural supply chains under the EUDR. It argues that official documentation and third-party certifications are often insufficient due to systemic corruption, land-grabbing, and informality. Through case studies of Brazil, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Indonesia, it highlights specific risks such as illegal deforestation in the Amazon and Cerrado, child labour in cocoa production, and the widespread lack of mandatory ISPO certification in Indonesia's palm oil sector. It recommends that EU operators consult local experts and civil society to verify the 'reality on the ground'.

The guide evaluates four green bank models—standalone green banks, green-focused policy development banks (PDBs), green facilities within PDBs, and country platforms—based on a country's economic position, governance, and product needs. It specifically highlights that country platforms are most suitable for low-income countries (LICs) and debt-distressed nations due to international financial institution (IFI) support. Additionally, the guide proposes three international support mechanisms: a new green bank design accelerator providing technical and seed funding, the expansion of existing platforms like the FiCS Innovation Lab, and the formation of a coalition of existing initiatives for knowledge exchange.

The report examines the role of green banks in bridging the USD 7.4 trillion annual climate funding gap. It identifies four main structures: standalone de novo banks, enhanced public development banks (PDBs), green facilities within PDBs, and country platforms. While standalone banks are more common in advanced economies, EMDEs frequently utilize green facilities as transitional mechanisms. The report emphasizes that success depends on financial, environmental, and political sustainability, and proposes three international support options: a new design initiative, expanding the FiCS Innovation Lab, or forming a coalition of existing initiatives.

The policy brief argues that meeting Paris Agreement goals requires a fivefold increase in urban climate finance to USD 4.3 trillion per year by 2030. It identifies critical barriers to subnational integration, including political misalignment, capacity gaps, and creditworthiness constraints. To address these, the authors present a five-stage 'Urban-inclusive Country Platform Framework' moving from initial engagement to implementation. The brief applies this framework to case studies in Egypt, Brazil, and India, highlighting opportunities to shift from fragmented project-based funding to strategic, programmatic approaches that empower cities as active partners in climate action.

The report examines Indonesia's energy transition through a lens of national interest, highlighting a significant gap between the high investment needs for Net Zero Emissions (NZE) and the limited availability of domestic and international funding. It argues that foreign climate finance often arrives as debt rather than grants, potentially exacerbating Indonesia's chronic fiscal deficits and public debt. The document analyzes the capacity of the Indonesian banking sector to fund renewable energy projects, finding that while capital adequacy is generally high, systemic bottlenecks in foreign exchange liquidity and long-term stable funding persist. It also evaluates the nascent Indonesian carbon market, noting a lack of clear emission caps (PTBAE) and low carbon prices. The authors propose 'The Indonesian Way,' a strategy focusing on eight action paths, including the dekarbonization of transport and electricity, targeted subsidies, and the development of a domestic green manufacturing ecosystem to reduce technological dependency.

The report examines Indonesia's path toward net-zero emissions by 2060, highlighting a significant gap between current investment levels and the estimated annual need of USD 73–76 billion. It argues that foreign climate finance is often debt-heavy and unreliable, urging a shift toward domestic funding and structural reforms. The analysis covers the banking sector's limited capacity to finance renewable energy, the underperformance of the national carbon market, and the socioeconomic disparities in energy access. It proposes an "Indonesian Way" consisting of eight strategic actions, including targeted subsidies and the development of a domestic clean-tech ecosystem, to ensure a just and sovereign transition.

The document outlines a training curriculum focused on 'energy justice' and 'energy sufficiency' to ensure the transition to renewables does not replicate the injustices of fossil fuel systems. It explores the risks of 'energy extractivism'—where resources are exploited in the Global South for consumption elsewhere—and provides examples of community-owned energy models in The Gambia, Brazil, Denmark, and the UK. The module guides participants through a process of identifying barriers to just transitions and developing local projects based on circular design and 'people power'.

The report details how climate change drives biodiversity loss through mechanisms like ocean acidification and species range shifts, while biodiversity loss weakens the planet's carbon sinks. It critically assesses 'false solutions'—including monoculture tree plantations, carbon offsetting, and geoengineering—arguing that these policies often cause further ecological damage and land grabbing. The document calls for a systemic shift toward agroecology, energy sufficiency, and the protection of Indigenous Peoples' land rights to address the polycrisis holistically.

The manual outlines a pedagogical framework to move beyond simple renewable energy substitution toward a systemic change based on energy sufficiency and sovereignty. It critiques 'energy extractivism'—the exploitation of resources in the Global South for external consumption—and 'green extractivism,' where climate mitigation narratives justify local land and resource loss. The guide promotes circular design to combat planned obsolescence and provides examples of community energy models in Gambia, Brazil, Denmark, and the UK, while detailing Scotland's policy strategy for local renewable ownership.

The document analyzes how climate change accelerates biodiversity loss and how the loss of ecosystems further destabilizes the climate. It critiques 'false solutions' such as monoculture tree plantations, carbon offsets, and geoengineering, arguing they often cause more harm than good. The report calls for a systemic shift toward agroecology, community-led energy transitions, and the protection of Indigenous rights.

In 2024, global coal power saw a contradiction: while new completions reached a 20-year low of 44 GW and the EU increased retirements fourfold, China and India saw record-breaking activity. China's new coal starts reached a ten-year high of 94 GW, driven by approval surges in 2022-2023 and supportive policies like capacity electricity tariffs and long-term power purchase agreements. Conversely, OECD nations have significantly reduced planned projects, though their retirement pace remains too slow to meet Paris Agreement goals.

In 2024, global coal capacity saw a net increase of 18.8 GW despite the lowest number of new commissions in 20 years, driven primarily by record construction activity in China and India. While the EU27 quadrupled its retirements and the UK eliminated coal entirely, other regions like Russia, Central Asia, and Mongolia continue to expand capacity. The report highlights a stark divide between OECD countries, where projects have plummeted, and Asia, where China and India account for 92% of new projects.

In 2024, global new coal capacity reached its lowest level in two decades, though China and India continued significant expansions. While the EU27 saw a fourfold increase in retirements and the UK closed its last coal plant, Indonesia experienced a surge in 'captive' coal plants for industrial use, contradicting its stated transition goals.