Search Climate Insights Directory

Brazil possesses a significant carbon competitiveness advantage due to its renewable-heavy electricity grid, but faces substantial risks from incoming Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms (CBAMs) and the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). While 78% of its exports go to net zero-aligned markets, structural contradictions—such as continued fossil fuel exploration and the 'Devastation Bill'—threaten its climate credibility. The economy is heavily dependent on China, and recent unilateral tariffs from the US have introduced significant geopolitical volatility.

Mighty Earth's 2024 review highlights significant private sector shifts, including JBS dropping 705 suppliers linked to deforestation and the postponement of JBS's IPO due to climate concerns. The organization also focused on expanding plant-based protein offerings among major retailers, challenging biomass policies in Japan, and launching a rewilding initiative for mountain lions in the Eastern United States.

In 2024, the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) focused on defending U.S. EPA pollution standards in court, advancing superhot rock geothermal and nuclear energy, and reducing global methane emissions. The organization also worked on simplifying renewable energy siting in the U.S., analyzing the efficiency of hydrogen and carbon capture, and addressing high capital costs for clean energy in Africa. In Europe, CATF influenced the EU's 2040 climate targets and the Net Zero Industry Act, while continuing state-level implementation of federal funding in the U.S.

The policy brief outlines how Poland can use its 2025 EU Council presidency to influence the EU's energy and climate agenda. It emphasizes the need for a technology-inclusive approach to industrial decarbonisation—including CCS and clean hydrogen—to address regional cost disparities and ensure energy security. The brief also highlights the importance of mitigating socioeconomic impacts through retraining and equitable state aid, while promoting diverse energy solutions such as small modular reactors (SMRs) and geothermal energy.

ClientEarth asserts that the EU-Mercosur trade deal contradicts the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) by allowing Mercosur countries to influence the implementation of EU law and by exposing EU Member States to trade disputes when enforcing deforestation rules. The analysis highlights specific articles in the agreement's Trade and Sustainable Development chapter that may force EU authorities to consider third-country information, potentially biasing objective assessments and country benchmarking processes. Furthermore, the agreement's broad definition of 'measure' and its 'rebalancing mechanism' could lead to legal disputes over EUDR compliance, creating political pressure that jeopardizes the EU's goal of protecting global forests.

The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) aims to reduce the EU's role in global deforestation by requiring sustainable sourcing of commodities like cattle, cocoa, and wood. However, the regulation has faced strong opposition from producer nations in the Global South, who describe it as 'regulatory imperialism' and a 'discriminatory and punitive unilateral benchmarking system'. These countries argue that the EUDR ignores national laws and shifts the financial burden of compliance onto producers, with Brazil estimating risks to exports worth 15 billion dollars and Indonesia facing potential losses of seven billion dollars. Internal EU political pressure has led to the regulation's postponement to the end of 2025 and the introduction of a 'no-risk' category, which critics warn could create loopholes for deforestation-linked products. The document further notes that some countries are redirecting exports to markets with less stringent requirements, such as China and Africa. It concludes that the EU must involve affected nations in policy drafting and prioritize reducing domestic consumption of high-impact products to achieve genuine sustainability.

The author reflects on the mixed progress of 2024, noting record renewable deployment alongside rising global emissions and a political shift toward anti-climate positions. To overcome these hurdles, the author proposes a strategy focused on the lowest-cost electricity mix, including 'clean firm' technologies like nuclear and geothermal, and the use of carbon capture in heavy industry. The document emphasizes the need for regionally differentiated policies and a realistic acknowledgment of the long-term role of fossil fuels to build durable coalitions for action.

Friends of the Earth US evaluates the Biden-Harris administration's 6-point framework to reduce US imports of deforestation-linked commodities. The analysis highlights the role of seven forest risk commodities—palm oil, beef, soy, coffee, cocoa, rubber, and corn—and argues that the US must adopt a holistic approach to combat illegal deforestation, which is often linked to human rights abuses and land grabbing. The organization recommends the creation of a public, transparent federal due diligence procedure independent of third-party certification, the use of Earth-observation data, and coordination with the European Union's Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). It also advocates for the passage of the federal FOREST Act and contributions to the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund.

Trase argues that the postponement of the EU deforestation regulation (EUDR) to 30 December 2025 should be used to refine benchmarking systems, strengthen national traceability in producer countries, and ensure EU member states are resourced for enforcement. The organization emphasizes the need for risk classifications that distinguish between subnational regions and commodities to avoid excluding smallholders and creating two-tier markets.

This white paper by the Green Economy Coalition argues that transitioning to a circular economy (CE)—characterized by recycling, reusing, and refurbishing—is essential for achieving a green, just, and inclusive transition and meeting global climate and social targets.

A coalition of non-profits calls on the European Commission to maintain leadership of the Global Methane Pledge (GMP) amid uncertainty regarding U.S. commitment. The letter advocates for the EU to implement its Methane Regulation, transition away from industrial animal agriculture, include a methane target in its NDC, and mobilise public grants for developing countries, noting that 111 of the 159 GMP signatories are official development assistance recipients.

The EU and UK have withdrawn from the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), but a 'sunset clause' in Article 47(3) may extend fossil fuel investment protections for up to 20 years, potentially until 2043. The author contends that the ECT is part of a systemic global issue involving over 2,800 bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and 450 treaties with investment provisions (TIPs) that facilitate investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) claims against climate policies. Current reform efforts by UNCITRAL, UNCTAD, the WTO, and the OECD are described as fragmented or focused on procedural rather than substantive changes. The document proposes the use of 'inter se' agreements to neutralize sunset clauses and the creation of a legally binding multilateral or plurilateral agreement to immediately remove investment benefits for fossil fuels and align financial flows with Article 2.1(c) of the Paris Agreement.

The document recommends that the European Commission set binding sectoral gross emission reduction targets for the agri-food sector, avoiding carbon offsets and technical fixes in favour of agroecological and organic farming. It calls for a strategy to transition away from intensive livestock rearing, including a reduction in farm animal numbers and a corresponding dietary shift. Finally, it proposes the establishment of an Agri-Food Just Transition Fund to de-risk business transformation and a reform of the Common Agricultural Policy to remunerate farmers for ecosystem services.

The report outlines a strategic framework for the EU's external partnerships, proposing four core principles—mutual benefit and just transition, inclusivity, robust financial commitment, and transparency—alongside five operational considerations: scope, partner selection, governance, support mechanisms, and monitoring and evaluation. These guidelines are intended to be applied to initiatives such as the Clean Trade and Investment Partnerships.

The document examines the potential for rechannelling Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) from wealthy IMF member states to Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), specifically the African Development Bank (AfDB), to address Africa's annual financing gap of over $400 billion. It details a proposal where SDRs would serve as hybrid capital, allowing the AfDB to leverage funds up to four times on capital markets. The brief identifies significant political and legal barriers, including the European Central Bank's (ECB) monetary financing prohibition and the lack of formal commitment from major holders like China, Japan, and the US. It recommends that South Africa's G20 presidency use diplomacy to seek ECB clarification, coordinate a Liquidity Support Agreement (LSA) with bilateral partners, and explore innovative fiscal tools such as SDR bonds or direct allocations to prescribed holders.

The document calls on New York Governor Kathy Hochul to sign the TREES Act, which would make New York the first U.S. state to require proof that state-purchased products do not drive deforestation. The author argues that this action is necessary to align state procurement with global markets and combat the climate catastrophe, especially as the European Union's similar deforestation regulation faces implementation delays.

The document reflects on the 'Reimagining Development Cooperation: Pragmatic Pathways for Africa-Germany Relations' event held in Berlin on January 24, 2024. It argues that the current relationship is rooted in a 'neocolonial model' characterized by unequal raw materials acquisition and a lack of value addition within African economies. Key discussions centered on the need to move beyond 'North-South' labels, the importance of industrialisation, and the necessity of shifting from a 'help partnership' to one based on mutual benefit and African leadership in agenda-setting. While the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) suggests 'refocusing' the relationship via its Africa Strategy, other participants called for a complete 'uprooting and disruption' of the current system to address colonial legacies and debt issues.

Ember argues that the draft FNA methodology focuses too narrowly on "surplus" renewable power rather than the broader goal of decarbonising the electricity system. The organization advocates for renaming flexibility needs to "non-fossil flexibility network needs" to signal a shift away from fossil assets and avoid stranded investments. Ember also calls for greater data transparency, the inclusion of cost-efficiency metrics, and the integration of the FNA into the existing ERAA/NRAA modelling process to better optimize the dispatch between fossil and non-fossil assets.

An open letter from over 30 environmental civil society organisations to the European Commission defending the role and funding of EU LIFE operating grants. The authors assert that civil society engagement is a legal requirement under the EU Treaties and the Aarhus Convention, essential for a balanced democratic dialogue against resource-rich corporate actors. They highlight that LIFE operating grants for environmental NGOs represent only EUR 15.5 million per year (0.006% of the EU budget) but provide critical support for climate action, nature conservation, and the energy transition. The letter emphasizes that these grants are awarded through competitive processes and subject to strict accountability and transparency standards.

The document examines the challenge of carbon leakage, where carbon pricing in one jurisdiction drives emissions to others. It evaluates several policy responses: international carbon pricing frameworks, Border Carbon Adjustments (BCAs), carbon cost containment (such as free allocations in ETS), subsidies, and product standards. Each tool is analyzed based on its effectiveness in preventing leakage, its impact on decarbonization incentives, administrative complexity, and potential conflicts with WTO law or international principles like 'common but differentiated responsibilities'.