Search Climate Insights Directory

The 2014 European elections saw a significant rise in far-right and eurosceptic forces, particularly in France where the Front National achieved 25% of the vote. While the German Greens maintained a double-digit result, they lost three mandates. Across Europe, the Green faction became more regionally diverse with new representatives from countries like Spain, Hungary, and Croatia, though it lost influence due to the collapse of a progressive majority in the Parliament. The author argues that the Greens must counter the narrative of the EU as a neoliberal tool and push for an end to unilateral austerity policies to restore trust in European integration.

The document evaluates the EU's climate policy instruments, finding that while 2020 targets are likely to be met, the reductions were driven more by the economic crisis than by policy. It highlights low cost-effectiveness due to a lack of uniform carbon pricing and notes that energy efficiency targets are at risk.

EU coal emissions rose 6% from 2010 to 2013, contributing to 18% of total EU CO2 emissions. This increase was driven by fuel-switching from gas to coal in Germany, the UK, and Poland, which together account for 66% of coal-based emissions. While renewables and falling demand reduced overall fossil generation by 4.3% per year, the low carbon price under the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) failed to prevent coal's resurgence. The report warns that the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) may not force expected closures because of cheaper compliance technologies and the introduction of capacity markets, particularly in the UK and Poland, which risk locking in high-carbon infrastructure into the 2030s. Modelling suggests that if coal remains cheaper than gas, emissions will fall only 3% by 2016, though the potential for fuel-switching will increase by 2020. Sandbag recommends urgent ETS reform, mandatory carbon intensity reporting, and targeted CCS funding.

The report examines the high financial risks governments face in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), where average claims reach US$492 million. It details the disparity between claimed and awarded amounts, a growing trend toward compound interest, and the significant burden of legal and administrative costs, which often fall disproportionately on respondent states, particularly developing countries.

The report by Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) details over 100 incidents of violence against environmental defenders across 27 countries. It identifies a systemic pattern of criminalization, physical attacks, and state repression linked to large-scale extractivist projects. The document advocates for legally binding international norms for transnational corporations and the recognition of environmental defense as a fundamental human right.

A coalition of social movements and NGOs argues that the FAO's current forest definition is reductionist and primarily benefits industrial timber, pulp, paper, and rubber companies. The authors contend that by defining forests simply as land with a certain percentage of tree cover, the FAO erroneously classifies large-scale monoculture plantations as 'reforestation' and ignores the structural and cultural importance of forests to the 300 million people who depend on them for their livelihoods. The letter calls for a new, community-led definition process that recognizes the role of forests in food sovereignty and biological diversity.

The document examines the nature of far-right extremism in Europe, categorising agents into youth gangs, terrorist cells, political/paramilitary groups, and nativist/anti-Islam movements. It identifies four primary government approach structures: general crime prevention, securitised, social-integration linked, and multi-agent/multi-level. The report highlights significant implementation challenges, including poor data collection, lack of frontline awareness, and the 'securitisation' of the issue which can alienate civil society. It concludes with ten key recommendations, emphasizing the need for comprehensive legal frameworks on hate crime, national Exit programmes for disengagement, and long-term funding for sustainable prevention.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) warns that TTIP may hinder public health and safety goals by promoting regulatory harmonization and mutual recognition that could lower chemical safety standards. The document highlights the divergence between the EU's hazard-based REACH approach and the US's risk-based TSCA approach, arguing that trade-driven 'regulatory coherence' often results in a 'lowest-common denominator' outcome. It further cautions against investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, which could allow corporations to sue governments over environmental laws, and warns that TTIP could preempt protective sub-national regulations in the US and EU. Finally, it suggests that a US-EU agreement could negatively influence the development of chemical regulations in other regions, such as the BRIICS countries.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), on behalf of several environmental organizations, warns the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance that TTIP may prioritize trade interests over public health. The document highlights the divergence between the EU's hazard-based REACH regulation and the U.S.'s risk-based Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), arguing that harmonization or mutual recognition could lead to a 'lowest-common denominator' approach to chemical safety. It specifically opposes investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, which it claims allow corporations to sue governments over public interest laws, and warns that TTIP could preempt protective sub-federal laws in the U.S. and national laws in EU member states. Finally, it suggests that a restrictive TTIP could discourage other nations, particularly BRIICS countries, from adopting more stringent chemical safety standards.

The document examines the AAU market from 2008 to 2012, focusing on how Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries used Green Investment Schemes (GIS) to transform 'hot air'—surplus emission rights resulting from economic downturns—into funding for climate mitigation. It analyzes the strategies of seller countries like Estonia and the Czech Republic, which were successful due to transparent monitoring, and buyer countries like Japan and Spain, which used these deals for technology exports. The report highlights a significant price drop in AAUs by 2012 and discusses the potential for GIS to inform future fund-based mechanisms like NAMAs in developing countries.

The document updates the 2011 subsidy estimates for EU biofuels, reducing the total estimated support from €9,272–€10,653 million to €5,515–€6,896 million. This correction stems from an overestimation of the volume of biofuels eligible for fuel excise tax exemptions. While budgetary support figures for bioethanol and biodiesel were lowered, other support elements, such as market transfers, remain unchanged. The report also details the calculation methodologies for excise tax exemptions and market price support via blending mandates.

The document warns that TTIP may prioritize trade interests over public health by promoting regulatory harmonization and mutual recognition that could lower chemical safety standards in the U.S. and EU. It specifically contrasts the EU's hazard-based REACH regulation with the U.S.'s risk-based TSCA approach, arguing that mutual recognition would effectively erase protections for chemicals restricted in only one jurisdiction. The author also cautions against investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, which could allow corporations to sue governments over public interest laws, and warns that TTIP could preempt protective sub-federal or sub-regional laws. Finally, the statement suggests that a low-standard TTIP could chill the development of stringent chemical regulations in other regions, such as the BRIICS countries.

The document warns that TTIP may prioritize trade over public health by promoting regulatory harmonization and mutual recognition that could weaken chemical safety standards. It highlights the divergence between the EU's hazard-based REACH approach and the US's risk-based TSCA approach, arguing that mutual recognition would effectively erase protections unique to one jurisdiction. The author also cautions against investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) and the preemption of sub-national laws, while noting that TTIP could negatively influence chemical regulations in non-member countries like the BRIICS nations.

The document details the transition of the IAI to a tripartite structure with directorates in Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay. It reports that the Science-Policy Liaison Directorate in Buenos Aires is operational, while the Integrated Operations and Finance Directorate in Montevideo awaits parliamentary ratification and the Science Development Directorate in Brazil is under review. Additionally, it notes a failed attempt at electronic voting for SAC vacancies due to lack of quorum and warns of a looming membership continuity crisis in the SAC. The report also mentions the IAI's participation in the ENSOCIO-LA project and the World Climate Research Program (WCRP) Conference for Latin America and the Caribbean.

The report details the transition of the IAI to a tripartite management scheme with offices in Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil. While agreements are in place and staff appointed in Argentina and Uruguay, the agreement with Brazil remains under study. Additionally, the report highlights a critical lack of continuity in the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) due to unfilled vacancies and expiring mandates, and notes the IAI's participation in the ENSOCIO-LA project and the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) for America and the Caribbean.

The report identifies significant gaps in risk mitigation for clean investments, particularly regarding policy and financing risks. It categorizes risks into four groups: political/policy/social, technical/physical, market/commercial, and outcome risks. In developed markets, gaps are most acute for policy risk due to retroactive support cuts and for technical risks in immature technologies. In developing markets, while the supply of political risk insurance is higher, policy risk remains under-covered and financing risks are exacerbated by weak domestic financial institutions. The authors argue that an optimal risk allocation framework should assign exogenous risks (like policy) to the public sector and endogenous risks (like technical) to the private sector.

The workshop explored how the tobacco industry's history of disinformation and the subsequent legal breakthroughs—specifically the discovery of internal documents—could inform strategies to hold fossil fuel companies accountable. Participants discussed various legal avenues, including public nuisance and RICO lawsuits, the scientific challenges of attributing specific climate damages to individual producers, and the need for a compelling public narrative to move beyond scientific evidence and mobilize public action.

The July 2012 issue of Investment Treaty News Quarterly explores the tension between investor protections and the regulatory autonomy of states. Key discussions include the use of deferential standards of review to enhance the legitimacy of investor-state arbitration and the risks associated with unilateral offers to arbitrate in national investment codes. The document also analyzes how international investment agreements can clash with the provision of public services and the increasing trend of investors challenging renewable energy feed-in tariffs (FiTs) and domestic content requirements. Additionally, it reviews the European Commission's draft text for investor-state dispute settlement in EU agreements and provides summaries of recent arbitral awards involving countries such as Slovakia, Cuba, Paraguay, Ecuador, and Turkey.

The author analyzes the electoral performance of European Green parties following the 2009 financial crisis, noting a trend of decline in several countries. To counter this, the text proposes five strategic challenges: focusing on societal needs over internal struggles, embracing diversity in leadership and membership, transitioning from 'whistleblowers' to 'solution providers', establishing credibility on economic issues by promoting alternative green economic concepts, and asserting a strong commitment to social justice and equity. The author advocates for a 'Green New Deal' as a practical first step toward a radical paradigm shift in the development model, emphasizing that proposed efforts must be effective, fair, and legitimate to restore public trust.

The letter expresses concern that carbon offsets are undermining EU climate goals by stifling domestic emission reductions and supporting projects that lack environmental integrity. It specifically highlights the negative impacts of coal-fired power plants and large hydro projects in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), as well as the lack of transparency in Track 1 Joint Implementation (JI).