Search Climate Insights Directory

International NGOs are urging France to use its influence to stop Japan from financing new coal power plants, citing three specific projects in Vietnam, Indonesia, and Bangladesh that contradict the 1.5°C climate goal.

A coalition of NGOs calls on France to oppose Japan's presence at the November 2020 Finance in Common Summit unless Japan ends its support for coal. The NGOs highlight that while France has committed to a coal exit, Japan continues to plan 11.9GW of domestic coal capacity and has supported 8.6GW of new coal plants internationally since the Paris agreements. Specifically, the statement identifies three overseas projects currently under consideration: Vung Ang 2 in Vietnam, Indramayu in Indonesia, and Matarbari Phase 2 in Bangladesh.

The policy brief examines how the EU can support the implementation of the AfCFTA to foster African economic integration and resilience. It identifies structural hurdles such as non-tariff barriers and infrastructure deficits, and recommends that the EU reorient its trade support, focus on institutional capacity building, coordinate efforts to match local needs, and engage directly with the African private sector.

The statement criticizes current financial institution commitments to the Paris Agreement as lacking concrete action and proposes two primary principles for alignment: adopting a commitment by COP26 that all supported projects and companies align with 1.5°C, and implementing processes to measure, disclose, and phase out financed emissions based on science-based targets.

The We Mean Business Coalition argues that integrating climate ambition into economic recovery is a strategic necessity for long-term growth and resilience. The statement highlights that green recovery measures are more effective at creating jobs and increasing GDP than traditional stimulus. It calls for specific policy actions, including the removal of fossil fuel subsidies, mandatory TCFD-aligned financial disclosures, and the requirement that companies receiving public financial assistance adopt science-based targets consistent with a 1.5°C warming limit.

The report finds that EU electricity demand nearly returned to 2019 levels by August 2020, leading to a surge in coal generation. This trend was exacerbated by record low nuclear output in France, which created a supply gap that wind and solar growth could not fully fill, resulting in coal generation reaching its highest level since March 2020.

The report argues that the plastic industry employs a 'corporate playbook' of delaying, distracting, and derailing progressive legislation to protect profits and maintain a linear economy. It analyzes the voluntary commitments of ten major polluters, including Coca-Cola, Nestlé, and PepsiCo, finding them largely non-binding and lacking transparency. The document details how industry groups use 'greenwashing' tactics—such as promoting chemical recycling and bioplastics—to divert attention from the need for mandatory collection systems like Deposit Return Schemes (DRS). Case studies across 15 countries, including the US, EU, China, and Kenya, illustrate how corporations lobby against bans on single-use plastics and shift responsibility to consumers. The report concludes that voluntary initiatives have failed and calls for mandatory legislation, including high collection targets, virgin plastic taxes, and a global treaty on plastic pollution.

The report argues that the plastics industry employs a 'corporate playbook' of delay, distraction, and derailment to protect its business model. It analyzes voluntary commitments from major polluters, finding them lacking in accountability and ambition. Through case studies in 15 countries, it demonstrates how companies lobby against mandatory collection systems like Deposit Return Systems (DRS) and promote 'false solutions' such as chemical recycling and bioplastics to shift responsibility onto consumers.

The report argues that the plastic industry employs a 'playbook' of distraction, delay, and diversion to protect profits while appearing to address the plastic crisis. It analyzes the voluntary commitments of ten major polluters, finding them largely lacking in transparency and accountability. The document highlights how companies use trade associations and fake environmental groups to lobby against mandatory collection and reuse laws, even while publicly supporting some initiatives. It concludes that voluntary actions have failed and calls for mandatory legislation, including deposit return systems and taxes on virgin plastics.

The document exposes how the plastic industry uses a 'playbook' of confusion, delay, and prevention to thwart progressive laws. It argues that voluntary commitments by major corporations are largely 'lip service' and that the industry actively lobbies against mandatory collection and reuse systems while promoting 'false solutions' like chemical recycling.

The document argues that the plastic industry uses a 'manual' of delay, distraction, and derailment tactics to protect profits and avoid mandatory regulations. It analyzes voluntary commitments from ten major polluters and over 50 collective initiatives, concluding that they lack transparency, accountability, and effectiveness. The report highlights how companies promote 'false solutions' like chemical recycling and bio-based plastics while lobbying against deposit return systems and mandatory collection targets. Case studies across 15 countries demonstrate a pattern of corporate hypocrisy, where companies may support legislation in the EU while fighting it in Africa, China, and the US.

The report argues that major plastic polluters use voluntary initiatives as a 'smoke screen' to delay, distract, and derail progressive legislation. It analyzes the commitments of the ten largest plastic polluters and over 50 joint initiatives, finding them lacking in ambition, transparency, and accountability. The document details industry tactics such as shifting blame to consumers and promoting chemical recycling, while calling for mandatory legislation, including 90% collection targets and deposit return systems.

The report argues that the plastic industry employs a 'corporate playbook' of delay, distraction, and derailment to protect profits and avoid mandatory regulation. It finds that voluntary commitments from major polluters are often 'paper promises' lacking transparency and accountability, while group initiatives serve as a 'smokescreen' for continued plastic production. The document calls for robust, mandatory legislation, including deposit return systems and virgin-plastic taxes, to address the crisis.

The report analyzes 46 green bonds (USD 37bn) issued in H1 2020. It finds that green bonds generally outperformed vanilla equivalents in terms of book cover and spread compression, particularly in the EUR market. Despite a general market sell-off during the COVID-19 pandemic, green bonds maintained sufficient liquidity and showed resilience. Approximately 55% of allocations went to green or socially responsible investors. While the 'greenium' (pricing inside the yield curve) was less consistent than in H2 2019, 11 of 21 bonds with buildable yield curves priced on or inside their curves. The report also highlights the emergence of the communications sector, exemplified by Swisscom, and the growth of green bond ETFs.

The report argues that the EU Commission should integrate climate and environmental protection objectives into its State aid decision-making process to ensure that national economic recovery programmes are consistent with the European Green Deal and the goal of climate neutrality by 2050.

The document identifies critical gaps in the EU's approach to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), noting that current laws fail to account for non-monotonic dose responses and the irreversibility of EDC effects. It argues that the EU has a legal and moral obligation under the precautionary principle to prevent harm, particularly to vulnerable populations like children. To address these failures, the brief proposes three primary actions: launching a broad REACH restriction for already identified EDCs based on existing lists, updating chemical screening systems through implementing acts and guidance to eliminate 'blind spots', and adopting a new legislative act to create a coordinated, continuously updated EU list of EDCs that automatically triggers regulatory consequences across all sectors.

The Canadian Climate Institute presents a framework of 11 indicators divided into goals (low-carbon growth, economic resilience), catalysts (technology development, adoption, trade, and infrastructure), and fundamentals (low-carbon jobs, affordable energy, inclusive resilience, clean air, and flourishing ecosystems). The report finds that while Canada has decoupled GDP from emissions nationally, progress is uneven across provinces. It highlights significant data gaps, particularly regarding climate costs, social vulnerability, and ecosystem health, and recommends cross-governmental collaboration and improved data correlation to support a just transition.

The Canadian Climate Institute identifies 11 indicators to track clean growth, categorized into goals (low-carbon growth and economic resilience), catalysts (technology development, adoption, trade, and infrastructure), and foundations (jobs, affordable energy, inclusive resilience, clean air, and ecosystems). The analysis reveals that while Canada has decoupled GDP from GHGs, progress is uneven across provinces, and significant data gaps hinder comprehensive policy tracking.

The document argues that CCfDs can mitigate regulatory and price uncertainty in carbon markets while providing innovation incentives for low-carbon industrial technologies. It positions CCfDs as one element of a broader five-part policy package including climate contributions, renewable CfDs, green public procurement, and product carbon requirements. The brief examines the economic costs and social values of CCfDs, suggests national-level implementation to be practical despite state aid complexities, and discusses their potential integration with COVID-19 Recovery Funds to ensure long-term business cases for green industrial investments.

The report finds that 11 of 18 EU coal-using countries lack Paris-compatible phase-out plans, with seven not planning to exit coal by 2030 and four replacing coal with increased fossil gas. It argues that the Just Transition Fund's current allocation methodology risks funding 'climate laggards,' as nearly two-thirds of the fund would go to countries without 2030 phase-out plans. The authors recommend making fund access conditional on ambitious coal phase-out dates and strictly excluding all fossil fuels, including gas, from the fund's scope.