Search Climate Insights Directory

The Transparent 2021 report analyzes the plastic footprints of eight global companies (Amcor, Colgate-Palmolive, Keurig Dr Pepper, Kimberly-Clark, McDonald’s, Procter & Gamble, Starbucks, and The Coca-Cola Company). In 2020, these members reported a total of 4.60 million metric tons of plastic sold to retailers and consumers. The report finds that 31% of this plastic was estimated to be recycled, while 44% went to landfills and 16% was mismanaged. Key progress includes the elimination of polystyrene (PS) from Keurig Dr Pepper's K-Cup pods and a reduction in small plastics by Starbucks and McDonald's. However, the report highlights a significant gap in the availability of recycled content, with the aggregate portfolio containing only 7.9% recycled content. The document advocates for a binding global treaty on plastic pollution to harmonize waste management data and scale circular solutions.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) argues that the USAID Climate Strategy 2022-2030 should expand its scope beyond renewable energy to include advanced clean energy technologies such as carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS), clean hydrogen, and advanced nuclear. CATF contends these are essential for decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors like heavy industry and shipping, and for maintaining grid reliability. The organization also urges USAID to explicitly support the Global Methane Pledge by helping partner countries reduce short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs), specifically in the oil and gas sector, provided such investments do not extend the life of fossil fuel operations. Finally, CATF recommends that USAID better align its climate programming with the broader economic, human development, and COVID-recovery priorities of host countries to ensure long-term sustainability and local ownership.

The report argues that achieving Paris Agreement goals in Latin America requires comprehensive policy frameworks and long-term visions to provide the planning certainty necessary to mobilise private capital for decarbonisation.

The report examines the Brazil's Federal Court of Accounts (TCU) as a key entity for risk management and preventive audits in federal land transport infrastructure. It finds that the TCU often becomes the primary body for approving Technical, Economical and Environmental Feasibility Studies (EVTEA), but typically does so too late in the project life cycle, leading to inefficiencies and wasted public resources. Through case studies of the BR-163/230/MT/PA highway, the North-South Railway (FNSTC), the South Integration Highway (RIS), and Ferrogrão, the document illustrates the TCU's role in defining environmental responsibilities and identifying flaws in feasibility studies, while maintaining a boundary that avoids infringing on the Executive Branch's discretionary power.

The report finds that France's Plan de relance largely neglects natural capital, with 47% of its budget categorized as neutral or impossible to assess regarding biodiversity. While 28% of the budget is expected to have a positive impact—primarily through climate mitigation—25% is expected to have a negative impact due to support for environmentally damaging industries and company tax reductions. The authors recommend implementing environmental conditionality for funds and adopting nature-based solutions to ensure long-term economic resilience.

The document provides a multi-expert critique of COP26, noting that while the summit completed the Paris Agreement rule book and secured net zero commitments for 90% of the world, it failed to secure a 'grand bargain' for coal with India or a loss and damage fund. It highlights the $8.5 billion just transition deal for South Africa as a potential model but warns that developed nations have failed to meet the $100 billion annual finance goal. Experts argue that the summit ignored the critical role of oceans in carbon absorption and failed to address the resource-intensive economic systems driving global warming.

The report outlines findings from several IAI Small Grants Programme projects. Key highlights include the loss of carbon retention in the Amazon due to deforestation, the identification of a complex 'water crisis' in border regions of Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay, and the development of predictive models for the Paraná River basin to balance hydroelectric energy needs with ecosystem services. It also emphasizes the role of co-production of knowledge and participatory governance in enhancing community adaptation to global environmental change across countries including Chile, Colombia, and Uruguay.

The Climate Action Tracker identifies a 'credibility gap' where current policies lead to 2.7°C of warming, while even the fulfillment of all 2030 targets would result in 2.4°C. Despite 90% of global emissions being covered by net zero targets, only 6% are rated as 'acceptable', and no analyzed country has sufficient short-term policies to reach its net zero goal. The report highlights the continued expansion of coal and natural gas as primary drivers of this failure.

Friends of the Earth International criticizes the COP26 deforestation pledge as a rebranding of failed initiatives like REDD+, asserting that it facilitates corporate greenwashing through carbon credits and offsets. The statement highlights the hypocrisy of signatory nations, citing the EU-Mercosur agreement's impact on the Amazon and the lack of binding regulations to protect Indigenous Peoples' rights and stop industrial agriculture and extractive industries.

Friends of the Earth International criticizes the COP26 deforestation pledge as a 'greenwashing' effort similar to failed REDD+ initiatives. The organization contends that the reliance on carbon offsets and private financing—exemplified by the UK's funding of the LEAF coalition—enables corporations like Amazon and Unilever to continue emitting while risking land grabs in the Global South. The statement highlights contradictions, such as the EU-MERCOSUR trade agreement's impact on the Amazon and Brazil's treatment of indigenous peoples, and calls for binding human rights instruments and immediate emission cuts over market-based sinks.

Friends of the Earth International criticizes the COP26 deforestation promise as a 'relooking' of failed initiatives like REDD+, claiming it facilitates corporate carbon offsetting rather than actual emission reductions. The statement highlights the hypocrisy of signatory nations, citing the EU-Mercosur trade agreement and Brazil's treatment of indigenous peoples, and calls for binding regulations and direct climate finance instead of market-based mechanisms.

The report finds that new coal capacity in the IRP 2019 is unnecessary for energy security, more expensive than renewable alternatives, and incompatible with the Paris Agreement. Modelling shows that forcing 1.5 GW of new coal into the system increases total discounted power system costs by R23 billion in a reference scenario and up to R109 billion in a climate policy scenario. Furthermore, the study argues that a high-renewable pathway creates more jobs and supports higher GDP growth than a coal-dominated future.

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.

ClientEarth evaluates the Environment Act 2021, noting that as a framework law, its success depends on future targets and rules. The organization criticizes the Act for failing to align air quality targets with WHO guidelines and for creating a loophole in deforestation laws by only restricting commodities produced illegally under local laws, which may fail to protect the Amazon rainforest.

The report examines how the TCU has evolved into a primary instance for the preventive control of socio-environmental risks in federal transport infrastructure concessions. While the TCU provides critical oversight to mitigate risks and ensure legal security, its intervention often occurs too late in the project lifecycle. This tardiness is attributed to a lack of motivated and transparent approval of Technical, Economic, and Environmental Viability Studies (EVTEA) by the Executive branch at the start of the viability phase. The document analyzes four case studies—BR-163/230/MT/PA, the North-South Railway (FNSTC), the Southern Integration Highway (RIS), and Ferrogrão—to illustrate the tensions between the TCU's oversight and the Executive's discretionary power, as well as the systemic failures in viability study quality, often exacerbated by the use of Manifestation of Interest (PMI) procedures.

The report argues that the UN Food Systems Summit has been 'captured' by corporate interests through the use of multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs), which shift governance from state-led multilateralism to a model dominated by transnational corporations and philanthropic foundations. An analysis of 26 MSIs reveals that the private sector holds the most influence, often occupying leadership roles. The document highlights the roles of the World Economic Forum (WEF), the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), and the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) in promoting industrial agriculture and 'nature-positive' solutions that the authors claim are 'false solutions' designed to maintain corporate dominance. It specifically criticizes the appointment of AGRA's president as the UN Special Envoy for the Summit as a conflict of interest and details how companies like Nestlé and Shell use nature-based solutions to offset emissions without reducing production.

The document argues that COVID-19 recovery efforts have remained largely piecemeal and short-term, missing the opportunity for deep structural reform. It proposes a nested framework of green structural measures—ranging from green fiscal reform and natural capital investment to green skills and governance—and categorises prioritisation criteria into conventional, advanced, and systemic/political brackets. The authors highlight significant gaps in current recovery agendas, particularly regarding gender integration, nature-based solutions, and the financing challenges faced by the global south.

The briefing finds that sectoral pledges on methane, coal, transport, and deforestation could close the 2030 emissions gap by approximately 9% (2.2 GtCO2e), though global emissions would still remain nearly twice as high as necessary for a 1.5°C pathway. The Global Methane Pledge and the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use offer the highest likely impacts, while the coal and electric vehicle initiatives provide minimal additional reductions due to limited signatory participation or delayed phase-out timelines.

The document outlines the role of major soy traders in driving deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon and Cerrado, critiquing current sustainability policies and certification schemes as insufficient. It recommends that financial institutions make financing contingent on traders adopting a January 2020 cut-off date, full traceability, and robust monitoring, with a timeline for suspending or ceasing services for non-compliance by 2023 and 2024.

The document identifies a regional trend where Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico have used the COVID-19 economic recovery as a justification to expand fossil fuel extraction and subsidies, often framing natural gas as a 'bridge fuel' or citing 'energy sovereignty'. This approach creates a 'carbon lock-in' that contradicts their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and increases the risk of stranded assets. The report highlights the central role of state-owned enterprises (such as PEMEX, YPF, and Petrobras) in maintaining this fossil-fuel dependency and notes a general absence of concrete just transition plans for affected workers and communities.