Search Climate Insights Directory

A joint statement by Ecojustice, the David Suzuki Foundation, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Breast Cancer Action Quebec, and Environmental Defence criticizing the proposed Watch List approach under CEPA for being overly complex. The organizations advocate for a hazard-based listing process that bypasses risk assessments and public consultations to avoid industry lobbying and delays, urging publication by Spring 2025.

The author contends that the green energy transition cannot rely on markets alone or the leadership of fossil fuel producers, who lack the incentive to undermine their core business. Instead, the transition must be driven by consumers reducing global demand through policies like carbon pricing. The text outlines four geoeconomic scenarios for this transition: 'survival of the fittest', 'geopolitical preferences', 'green preferences', and 'development preferences', suggesting that the latter two—which prioritize low-carbon footprints and the socio-economic needs of lower-income producers—are the most just and realistic pathways to meeting Paris Agreement goals.

NGOs BLOOM, ClientEarth, Oceana, and Seas At Risk call on EU Commissioners to finalize the Energy Taxation Directive (ETD) revision to remove fuel tax exemptions and release a roadmap for the decarbonisation of the fisheries sector. The letter argues that current subsidies distort the market, favor industrial fleets over small-scale fishers, and contribute to the release of up to 1 gigaton of carbon via bottom trawling. The authors advocate for a just transition that prioritizes low-impact, artisanal fisheries to ensure energy security and the long-term viability of marine resources.

The paper examines India's agricultural subsidy regime, focusing on the Minimum Support Price (MSP) and input subsidies for fertilizer, power, and irrigation. It highlights their role in achieving self-sufficiency in rice and wheat and protecting 650 million beneficiaries through the Public Distribution System. While acknowledging criticisms regarding inequity, budget pressure, and environmental degradation, the author argues that these subsidies are critical for small farmers and rural poverty alleviation, especially given global market volatility and trade pressures from developed-country subsidies.

This report by QuotaClimat examines how climate disinformation has moved from social media fringes into mainstream news outlets, particularly in France. It identifies structural vulnerabilities in the media industry—such as financial crises, the rise of 'infotainment', and a regulatory vacuum—that allow anti-science narratives to proliferate. The document argues that news media, despite their perceived credibility, often act as channels for disinformation through 'false balance' and selective framing. It concludes by advocating for a new legislative framework in France to mandate environmental coverage standards and strengthen the role of the regulator, Arcom.

The report evaluates the integration of permanent carbon removals—specifically BioCCS and DACCS—into the EU ETS. It identifies a critical tension: while direct integration can drive deployment and maintain market liquidity as the emissions cap approaches zero, it risks 'abatement deterrence' where removals substitute for necessary emissions reductions. The authors warn that without supply controls, BioCCS deployment could exceed sustainable biomass limits, potentially harming biodiversity and LULUCF carbon sinks. To mitigate these risks, the report recommends a gradual integration strategy that maintains the gross emissions cap, implements technology-specific supply controls, and introduces differentiated allowances. It also emphasizes that the EU ETS alone is likely insufficient to incentivize high-cost technologies like DACCS or to achieve net-negative emissions post-2050, necessitating additional public funding tools and long-term policy frameworks.

The compendium details the legal arguments presented from December 2 to December 13, 2024, at the ICJ. It highlights a fundamental divide between climate-vulnerable nations and several high-emitting States. Vulnerable nations, including many Small Island Developing States (SIDS), argue for a 'harmonious interpretation' of international law, asserting that obligations to prevent transboundary harm and protect human rights exist independently of and complement the Paris Agreement. They demand accountability for historical emissions and full reparations, including debt cancellation. Conversely, a minority of high-emitting States, such as the United States, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, argue that the UN climate treaty regime (UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreement) is the exclusive source of State obligations, seeking to limit liability and reject the applicability of customary international law or human rights law to climate mitigation.

The report provides a detailed overview of the EU's REACH and CLP regulations and the Chemical Strategy for Sustainability, alongside China's evolving environmental law system and its management of new and existing chemical substances. It highlights gaps in the EU's data availability and the nascent state of China's environmental risk assessment system, ultimately recommending institutionalised annual exchanges and capacity-building activities under the EU-China Environmental Policy Dialogue to share technical expertise and policy lessons.

The document details the expansion of salmon aquaculture in Chile, highlighting the ecological damage caused by open-net cages and the violation of Indigenous rights, particularly for the Kawésqar people. It argues that the industry faces increasing financial, legal, and regulatory risks due to its environmental footprint and failure to conduct proper due diligence.

The report argues that the EU's REACH Authorisation regime, designed to phase out the most hazardous chemicals, is undermined by widespread non-compliance and a lack of deterrent enforcement. It highlights that 40% of inspected companies fail to meet their obligations, yet authorities frequently rely on 'written advice' rather than dissuasive sanctions. Through case studies in France, Germany, and Spain, the document exposes a lack of transparency, with authorities often withholding enforcement data by citing commercial interests. It concludes that the European Commission and ECHA lack sufficient oversight of national enforcement, and recommends a stricter accountability framework, more frequent reporting, and the creation of public registries of infringements to incentivize compliance.

The document provides a detailed analysis of the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA), which aims to secure the EU's supply of 17 strategic raw materials by 2030. It highlights the risks of fast-tracked permitting for 'Strategic Projects', the potential for 'greenwashing' through private certification schemes, and the challenges facing Indigenous Peoples and local communities in exercising their rights to participation and consent. The guide also examines the interaction between the CRMA and existing EU environmental directives, such as the Habitats and Birds Directives, and outlines the limited access to justice available to stakeholders.

ClientEarth asserts that the EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement undermines the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) by allowing Mercosur countries to influence EU law enforcement and by creating a dispute settlement mechanism that could be used to challenge EUDR implementation. The organization warns that these concessions may force EU Member States to act inconsistently with their legal obligations to ensure deforestation-free imports.

The document advocates for the full implementation of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), arguing that they are essential for the European Green Deal and sustainable finance. It warns that arbitrary reductions in reporting obligations would create legal uncertainty and undermine the ability of investors to allocate capital to the green transition. The authors emphasize that the standards already include significant flexibility through materiality assessments and phase-in periods, and they propose improving usability through practical guidance, capacity building for Member States, and the development of sector-specific standards.

A joint letter from various organisations calling for a 'people first' approach to EU ETS revenues, recommending stricter earmarking rules to prevent fossil fuel lock-in, the phase-out of free allowances for polluters, and the expansion of the Social Climate Fund to protect vulnerable citizens from ETS2 costs.

The policy brief, resulting from the CO2ol Down co-creation project, argues for a clear distinction between temporary biogenic sequestration and permanent carbon dioxide removals (CDR). It recommends that the EU set legally binding, transparent targets for permanent removals in addition to emissions reduction targets, aiming for net-negative GHG emissions by 2055. The brief proposes a governance framework involving EU-level oversight of CO2 transport and storage, member state-level procurement via reverse auctions or contracts for difference, and a financing model based on the 'Polluter Pays' principle. It emphasizes a portfolio approach to diversify removal methods and strict sustainability criteria, including the requirement that CDR activities be powered by additional renewable energy sources.

The report, produced by the CO2ol Down project, argues that the current EU Climate Law fails to differentiate between temporary biogenic sequestration and permanent carbon removals. It proposes specific legislative amendments to ensure that permanent removals are used only to compensate for residual emissions and that biogenic sequestration is managed for ecosystem resilience rather than as a primary tool for climate neutrality. The proposal suggests establishing separate targets and trajectories for emissions reductions, biogenic sequestration, and permanent removals to avoid mitigation deterrence.

The report positions the circular economy (CE) as a cornerstone of the green economy, emphasizing that a 'just transition' must balance environmental sustainability with social justice. It identifies systemic barriers to CE adoption, such as reliance on linear models and a growing 'circularity divide' between advanced and developing economies. The document advocates for integrated frameworks, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and specific policy instruments—including green procurement and financial incentives—to drive a regenerative economic system that protects marginalized communities and restores natural ecosystems.

The paper analyzes India's agricultural subsidy regime, focusing on the Minimum Support Price (MSP) and input subsidies for fertilizers, electricity, and irrigation. It highlights their role in ensuring food security and supporting small farmers while acknowledging criticisms regarding inefficiency, market distortion, and environmental degradation. The author argues that while rationalization is needed, abrupt removal of these subsidies—which represent 21% of agricultural income—could exacerbate rural poverty.

The document examines the phenomenon of carbon leakage, where carbon pricing in one jurisdiction leads to increased emissions in others. It evaluates several mitigation tools, including Border Carbon Adjustments (BCAs), carbon cost containment measures (such as free allocations in ETS), subsidies, and product standards, while noting the political and practical hurdles of achieving a coordinated global carbon price.

The paper examines India's agricultural subsidy regime, highlighting the role of the Minimum Support Price (MSP) and the Public Distribution System (PDS) in ensuring food security for millions. It details the growth of input subsidies for fertilizers, electricity, and irrigation, which reached USD 48 billion in 2022-2023. While acknowledging criticisms regarding market distortion, budget pressure, and environmental degradation, the author argues that these subsidies are vital for small farmers and rural stability, especially given the pressures of global trade and the limitations of current banking infrastructure for direct income transfers.