Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that current carbon dioxide removal (CDR) policies often encourage 'mitigation deterrence' by treating removals as equivalent to emission reductions. It reviews various mechanisms—including emissions trading systems, tax credits, and voluntary markets—and concludes that most fail to ensure environmental integrity or permanence. The authors propose a 'blueprint' for sensible policy that strictly separates emission reduction targets from removal targets, mandates robust monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV), and prioritizes the 'Do No Significant Harm' principle. It suggests that funding for CDR should come from carbon pricing revenues or dedicated procurement schemes rather than offsetting mechanisms.

Reclaim Finance analyzed 40 bond packages issued by 13 fossil fuel companies in 2023, totaling US$45 billion, to expose the financial institutions facilitating fossil fuel expansion. The report highlights a significant policy gap where banks and asset managers continue to provide corporate-level financing and bond structuring for oil and gas developers despite public net zero commitments. It specifically notes that some fossil fuel bonds have been included in ESG funds and marketed as 'sustainability-linked bonds'.

Reclaim Finance recommends that French life insurers implement a Climate/Energy policy across all asset classes to end support for fossil fuel expansion. The guide details specific implementation paths for 'fonds euro' (general funds) and 'unités de compte' (unit-linked accounts), proposing a phased timeline from 2024 to 2026 to pressure asset management companies (SdG) into compliance through divestment threats and strict selection criteria.

Over 60 figures from civil society, economics, and academia call for the French government to adopt ambitious exclusion criteria for the ISR label, specifically targeting companies expanding fossil fuel production, to align the label with climate goals and avoid misleading investors.

Over 60 representatives from academia, business, and various organisations have urged the French government to ensure the socially responsible investment (SRI) label does not include oil and gas companies with expansion strategies that conflict with France's climate goals.

A coalition of financial actors, academics, and NGOs calls on the French government to ensure the credibility of the reformed ISR label by excluding companies developing new fossil fuel projects. The signatories argue that allowing such investments constitutes greenwashing and contradicts national and international climate goals, specifically the 1.5°C target. They support the Label Committee's proposal to exclude non-conventional fossil fuels and advocate for a broader exclusion of conventional hydrocarbon projects to align private savings with the ecological transition.

Half of the world's economies are at least five years past a peak in fossil power generation, with 107 economies representing 38% of global electricity demand having seen emissions fall by nearly 20% over the last decade. While the EU, Oceania, and North America are in a period of decline, Asia and the Middle East are the only regions yet to reach a peak, though individual countries like Viet Nam and Japan show progress. The report emphasizes that the expansion of wind and solar is the primary driver of fossil fuel displacement, noting that without these technologies, power sector emissions would be 20% higher.

The author contends that the EU's response to the Israel-Palestine crisis and other regional issues is hampered by internal divisions and the lack of a comprehensive Middle East strategy. The text highlights how the unanimity rule allows single member states to block collective action, such as ceasefire calls or opposition to US-led peace plans. It suggests that as US influence in the region wanes, the EU has an opportunity to establish an independent role, potentially through 'green diplomacy', provided it can overcome its internal fragmentation and move toward qualified majority voting.

The document explores using unilateral declarations to reduce nuclear risks, specifically proposing a 'sole purpose' doctrine for NATO nuclear forces—limiting their role to deterring or responding to nuclear attacks. It analyzes the legal nature of such declarations, historical precedents like the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, and five potential pathways for NATO to implement this shift, ranging from high-level statements to the removal of forward-deployed gravity bombs. The authors note that such a move would require deep alliance consensus and would be complicated by current tensions with Russia, which views tactical nuclear weapons as a "competitive advantage."

The undersigned organizations argue that the EU's proposed EPR for textiles lacks essential waste prevention and performance targets, which could lead to increased exports of textile waste. They propose specific 2030 targets for collection (60%), recycling (30%), and reuse (30%), while advocating for 'progressive fees' based on production volumes to combat fast fashion. The statement also calls for the inclusion of online marketplaces in EPR obligations, the expansion of scope to include mattresses and carpets, and a governance overhaul of Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs) to prevent corporate capture.

Natural Justice argues that nuclear energy is an economically unviable and environmentally dangerous alternative to renewable energy in South Africa. The commentary contends that the National Nuclear Regulator Amendment Bill encourages investment in a sector characterized by high costs, long lead times, and significant waste management risks. It specifically criticizes the extensive powers granted to the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, citing the Department's poor track record in rehabilitating abandoned mines as evidence that it cannot be trusted to manage nuclear decommissioning and waste. The authors advocate for decentralized renewable energy solutions, such as solar and wind, to address load shedding and rural energy access.

The Council on Strategic Risks condemns the atrocities committed by Hamas against civilians in Israel, echoes the support of world leaders for the Israeli people, and notes the rising trend of global antisemitism.

The Clean Air Task Force analysis suggests that an EU import standard for oil and gas could reduce over 30% of global methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, which is 20 times more effective than regulating domestic EU production alone. The briefing proposes a methane intensity threshold of 1.7 kilotonnes of methane emitted per million tonnes of oil equivalent (MTOE) to ensure a fair playing field for both oil and gas producers. Implementing this standard could save 90 billion cubic meters of gas, equivalent to nearly Germany's annual consumption, and generate €55 billion in total savings for exporting and EU-based producing countries.

The document argues for the adoption of a compensation right in the EU Industrial Emissions Directive to address the health impacts of illegal industrial pollution and provide legal redress for victims.

The document argues for the adoption of an effective right to compensation within the EU Industrial Emissions Directive (specifically article 79 bis) to address health damages caused by illegal industrial pollution. It highlights that industrial air pollution caused damages valued between 277 and 433 billion euros in 2017 and asserts that current legal frameworks leave victims powerless. The authors propose that a harmonized right to compensation, including industry and authority liability, class actions, and the production of evidence, would protect fundamental rights, encourage legal compliance, and save the European economy 55 billion euros annually through better environmental law adherence.

A joint statement by environmental, health, and consumer organizations calling for the adoption of a harmonized right to compensation within the EU Industrial Emissions Directive (IED). The authors argue that current legal frameworks are inconsistent, leaving victims of industrial pollution without effective recourse. They propose that introducing minimum guarantees for compensation would protect fundamental rights to life and health, incentivize industrial compliance, and provide legal certainty for citizens, industry, and governments.

A joint call by environmental, health, and consumer organisations urging EU policymakers to introduce a right to compensation (Article 79a IED) for victims of illegal industrial pollution. The authors argue that such a mechanism would protect fundamental rights, create a level playing field for industry by incentivising compliance, and harmonise existing fragmented national laws.

A coalition of organisations, including ClientEarth and the European Consumer Organisation, calls for the adoption of an effective right to compensation within Article 79a of the EU Industrial Emissions Directive. The appeal argues that current legal frameworks leave victims of illegal industrial pollution without real opportunities for redress, despite the significant health and economic costs of such pollution. The proposed solution includes minimum guarantees such as liability for illegally operating industry and authorities, class actions, and information disclosure tools. The authors contend that this would harmonise inconsistent national laws, uphold fundamental human rights, and encourage legal compliance, potentially saving the EU economy 55 billion euros annually.

The briefing advocates for four key minimum guarantees to make the IED compensation right effective: support for collective actions to represent vulnerable individuals, accountability for authorities when their breaches cause individual damage, court-led disclosure tools to address information asymmetry, and the use of rebuttable presumptions to balance evidence requirements. It also rejects any limitations on the use of scientific data as evidence in court.

The submission critiques the National Treasury's use of IFI loans, highlighting how World Bank conditionalities and IMF variable interest rates restrict policy autonomy and increase financial risk. It specifically warns that the Just Energy Transition Investment Plan (JET-IP) may exacerbate debt dependency. The authors call for mandatory parliamentary oversight, human rights impact assessments, and gender-responsive budgeting for all future IFI lending.