Search Climate Insights Directory

The document contends that treating natural gas as a 'bridge fuel' and funding its proliferation in the Global South through climate finance would jeopardize the 1.5°C warming target and the Paris Agreement. It highlights three primary risks: supply dependency on a few countries, extreme price volatility—exemplified by the 2022 energy crisis in Europe—and the high warming potential of methane leaks. The author argues that renewable energy is a more secure and cost-effective alternative, citing the scaling of wind and solar in Brazil, China, Vietnam, and India.

The analysis examines the risks associated with cooling access for rural and urban poor populations, projecting that 1.22 billion people could remain at high risk by 2030 without intervention. It highlights that achieving goals for poverty eradication and energy access could protect nearly half a billion people in high-impact countries, while emphasizing the need for sustainable, energy-efficient cooling to prevent a surge in greenhouse gas emissions as demand grows.

The Climate Change Performance Index 2023 finds that none of the 60 largest emitters are on a 1.5°C pathway, leaving the top three ranks unoccupied. Denmark is the current frontrunner, leading in almost all categories, while China and the US are categorized as 'very low' performers. The report highlights a wide disparity in performance among EU countries and identifies Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Kazakhstan as the worst overall performers due to heavy oil reliance and weak renewable energy adoption.

The report warns that massive LNG expansion and a lack of ambitious national climate targets are jeopardizing the 1.5°C warming limit. It highlights that current 2030 targets lead to 2.4°C of warming and that LNG capacity under construction could increase emissions by over 1.9 GtCO2e per year by 2030 above Net Zero scenarios. While some policy progress is noted in the US, China, and the EU, international climate finance remains insufficient, and the phase-down of coal is largely being ignored by major emitters.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with over 80 times the warming power of CO2 over 20 years, though it breaks down in about 12 years. Approximately 60% of methane emissions result from human activity, primarily agriculture (40%), the energy sector (35%), and waste management (20%). The five largest global emitters are China, the U.S., Russia, India, and Brazil. In the U.S., the energy sector's contribution is estimated by the IEA at 54%, significantly higher than the EPA's 38% due to underreported 'ultra-emitting events'. Reduction strategies include repairing leaks in oil and gas production, capturing biogas from waste and agriculture, and using alternative livestock feed. Measurement is shifting from 'bottom-up' inventories to 'top-down' remote sensing via satellites and aircraft to better identify point sources. The Global Methane Pledge, launched at COP26, aims for a 30% reduction in global methane emissions from 2020 levels by 2030, though several top emitters have not yet joined.

The report identifies methane as a critical target for slowing climate change due to its high warming potential and short atmospheric lifetime. It highlights significant discrepancies between 'bottom-up' government estimates and 'top-down' satellite measurements, particularly in the energy sector. The document details mitigation strategies such as leak detection and repair (LDAR) in oil and gas, alternative livestock feeds, and alternate wetting and drying in rice cultivation. It also emphasizes the role of biogas and food waste reduction as cross-cutting solutions for the agriculture and waste sectors.

Mighty Earth argues that the agribusiness soy roadmap fails to address the climate and nature crisis because it allows companies to set their own deforestation cut-off dates by 2025 rather than enforcing immediate action. The organization claims this approach undermines Brazil's environmental agenda and ignores demands from supermarkets for a 2020 cut-off date, warning that the Amazon is approaching a tipping point after losing over 2 billion trees in four years.

Carbon Market Watch criticizes the ICAO General Assembly for weakening the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) by lowering its emissions baseline to 85% of 2019 levels. The author contends that CORSIA is an ineffective tool relying on low-quality offsets and is susceptible to industry influence. Consequently, the document urges the EU to stop relying on this global system and expand the EU ETS to cover all long-haul flights departing and arriving in the EU.

The document advises journalists to avoid cynicism when covering COP27, urging them to humanize and localize stories while holding powerful actors accountable. It emphasizes the critical nature of the 1.5-degree-C target and the central role of 'loss and damage' payments from rich to poor countries as a matter of climate justice.

The E4N partnership, a collaboration between the Green Economy Coalition, Capitals Coalition, Green Growth Knowledge Partnership, and WWF France, worked to make 'natural capital-based green economies' a global best practice. The partnership focused on creating tools for measuring nature's value, convening multistakeholder networks, and advocating for the inclusion of nature in economic decision-making. Key achievements include the development of the Green Economy Tracker, the establishment of Business for Nature, and the integration of natural capital into the EU Green Deal and African development finance. While the report notes a shift toward 'nature-positive economies,' it highlights persistent challenges in data quality and capacity, as well as a gap between government rhetoric and actual policy implementation during COVID-19 green recovery efforts.

The report examines the growth of green bonds in emerging markets, identifying critical success factors such as sound regulatory frameworks, investor demand, public sector participation, and macroeconomic stability. It details barriers including underdeveloped capital markets, a lack of bankable projects, and the risk of greenwashing. The document provides a five-step issuance process and analyzes the roles of development banks and national governments in catalyzing markets. Case studies on India and Kenya illustrate different stages of market readiness, from a corporate-led leader (India) to a nascent market (Kenya), offering tailored policy advice to enhance sustainable finance flows.

The report finds that 15 major meat and dairy companies produce combined methane emissions of 12.8 million tonnes, representing 11.1% of global livestock-related methane. These emissions exceed the total methane footprints of countries like Russia, Canada, and Australia. The authors highlight a severe lack of corporate transparency, noting that 60% of the analyzed companies fail to report total supply chain (scope 3) emissions. The report criticizes governments for relying on 'techno fixes' like anaerobic digesters rather than reducing livestock numbers, and calls for binding targets and a just transition toward agroecology.

The report estimates that five major meat and ten major dairy companies emit approximately 12.8 million tonnes of methane, representing 11.1% of global anthropogenic methane emissions from livestock. These companies' total greenhouse gas emissions (734 million tonnes CO2 equivalent) exceed those of Germany. The authors highlight a significant lack of transparency, noting that 60% of these companies do not report full supply chain (Scope 3) emissions, and none report supply-chain methane. The document calls for mandatory emissions disclosure and a reduction in livestock numbers to meet the 1.5°C global warming limit.

The report finds that 15 major meat and dairy companies emit approximately 12.8 million tonnes of methane, representing 3.4% of global anthropogenic methane emissions and 11.1% of livestock-related methane. These combined emissions exceed the methane footprints of several countries, including Russia, Canada, Australia, and Germany. The authors highlight a pervasive lack of corporate transparency, noting that 60% of the companies fail to report total GHGs or scope 3 emissions, and none report supply chain methane. The report calls for mandatory reporting, binding reduction targets, and a systemic shift away from industrial animal agriculture.

The report estimates that five of the largest meat companies and ten of the largest dairy corporations emit approximately 12.8 million tonnes of methane, representing 3.4% of global anthropogenic methane emissions and 11.1% of global livestock methane. Total greenhouse gas emissions for these companies reach 734 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, exceeding Germany's national emissions. The authors highlight a lack of corporate transparency, noting that 60% of the analyzed companies do not report total emissions or Scope 3 emissions, and none reported supply chain methane. The report calls for binding reduction targets, mandatory reporting, and a systemic shift toward agroecology to meet the 1.5°C global warming limit.

The report finds that 15 major meat and dairy companies emit approximately 12.8 million tonnes of methane, representing 3.4% of global anthropogenic methane emissions and 11.1% of global livestock methane. The combined greenhouse gas emissions of these companies (734 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent) exceed those of Germany. The document highlights a significant lack of corporate transparency, with 60% of the analyzed companies failing to report total emissions or scope 3 emissions. It calls for binding emission targets, mandatory reporting, and a systemic shift toward agroecology to meet the 1.5°C warming limit.

The report finds that 15 major meat and dairy companies collectively emit approximately 12.8 million tonnes of methane, representing 3.4% of all anthropogenic global methane emissions and 11.1% of global livestock-related methane. The authors highlight a significant lack of corporate transparency, noting that 60% of these companies do not report total emissions across their value chain (Scope 3). The document calls for binding government targets for agricultural emissions and a systemic shift toward agroecological systems to meet the 1.5°C warming limit.

The document analyzes the ABC Cerrado project, finding that while training alone is effective for large-scale producers (over 100 hectares), small-scale producers require the addition of technical assistance to implement sustainable practices. It suggests a cost-effective policy approach of providing universal training while focalizing expensive technical assistance on small producers to maximize pasture restoration and reduce deforestation pressures.

The document argues that 'net zero' targets are a 'smoke screen' allowing corporations to maintain fossil fuel and industrial agriculture business models. It specifically critiques 'nature-based solutions' (NbS) and carbon offsets as mechanisms that lead to land grabbing, the displacement of Indigenous and peasant communities, and the co-optation of agroecology. The report highlights the technical failures of carbon offsets, the volatility of biological carbon storage compared to fossil carbon, and the risks of 'digital soil carbon' platforms that allow agribusinesses to control farmer data and land use.

The document argues that 'net zero' strategies serve as a 'smoke screen' for large corporations to continue fossil fuel extraction and industrial agriculture. It specifically critiques 'nature-based solutions' and soil carbon sequestration as mechanisms that facilitate land grabbing, data appropriation, and the co-optation of agroecology, ultimately benefiting agribusiness and tech firms while undermining the rights of small-scale producers and Indigenous peoples.