Search Climate Insights Directory

The manual operationalizes the national M&E system for climate change adaptation in Viet Nam, detailing a six-step process for data collection, analysis, and reporting. It defines 72 quantitative and qualitative indicators across six thematic groups, including state management, resilience, disaster risk reduction, investment, science/technology, and awareness raising. The document specifies the roles of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE) as the focal agency and provides a structured framework for annual reporting via an online platform.

The author contends that the EU's adherence to strict debt-to-GDP ratios and austerity has undermined public services, lowered living standards, and hindered the energy transition. The text calls for a shift away from the 'fiscal straitjacket' of the Maastricht criteria toward a framework that empowers national governments and the European Commission to invest in carbon emission reductions and social infrastructure.

The report examines the impact of housing commodification in European cities, contrasting the neoliberal policies of the UK and Germany with the social housing models of Vienna, France, and Barcelona. It highlights how public investment and political commitment to housing as a human right, rather than a market asset, lead to lower rent burdens and better urban quality of life.

The island of Ventotene has established a renewable energy community to combat rising energy costs and foster local autonomy. Initiated during the pandemic by a PhD student and supported by the local government, the project aims to transform residents from consumers into 'prosumers' who own and share local energy production. The community emphasizes a redistributive model where businesses with high solar capacity, such as hotels, can support individuals and small businesses. Despite its success as a 'laboratory for innovation,' the project faced delays due to Italian legislative instability and technical grid connection issues. The case highlights a broader Italian context where 38 communities are recognized and 65 are planned, supported by EU funding via the National Recovery and Resilience Plan, though Italy remains behind some European neighbors in implementation speed.

The author argues that the Brothers of Italy (FdI) won the 2022 Italian elections not through ideology, but by promising security and a stronger state during a period of energy crisis and war. While the centre-right coalition shared a platform, FdI distinguished itself by prioritizing energy security, a presidential system, and cutting spending—including the abolition of green renovation grants—which aligned with voter priorities over climate action or immigration. Conversely, the centre-left failed by focusing on discrediting opponents rather than offering credible alternatives on economic intervention and social liberalism.

The letter asserts that the Energy Charter Treaty's modernisation process is insufficient, as it maintains investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms and protects fossil fuel assets for at least a decade in the EU and UK. It notes that several EU Member States, representing over 70% of the EU population, have already announced their withdrawal. The authors urge the European Commission to facilitate a coordinated EU withdrawal to avoid legal limbo and prevent fossil fuel investors from hindering climate action.

The document criticizes ENGIE's coal phase-out strategy, claiming the company avoids genuine decarbonization by selling coal plants to third parties or converting them to fossil gas and solid biomass. It highlights specific asset sales in Europe, Brazil, and Morocco, and conversions in Chile, arguing these actions are not aligned with a 1.5°C trajectory and risk ecological damage.

Reclaim Finance criticizes ENGIE for its 'false' coal exit strategy, which involves selling coal plants to third parties or converting them to biomass and fossil gas. The document highlights specific cases in Germany, the Netherlands, Brazil, Morocco, and Chile, arguing that these actions avoid corporate responsibility for environmental damage and fail to align with a 1.5 °C warming trajectory.

The document contends that treating natural gas as a 'bridge fuel' and funding its proliferation in the Global South through climate finance would jeopardize the 1.5°C warming target and the Paris Agreement. It highlights three primary risks: supply dependency on a few countries, extreme price volatility—exemplified by the 2022 energy crisis in Europe—and the high warming potential of methane leaks. The author argues that renewable energy is a more secure and cost-effective alternative, citing the scaling of wind and solar in Brazil, China, Vietnam, and India.

The Public Service Media and Public Service Internet Manifesto calls for a transition from traditional public broadcasting to a 'Public Service Internet' to counter the negative impacts of commercial digital giants on democracy. It proposes a digital ecosystem based on transparency, data privacy, and public funding, where algorithms are open-source and content is designed for citizens rather than consumers. The manifesto envisions a 2040 utopia where Public Service Media is a universal, diverse, and sustainably funded network infrastructure that promotes media literacy and social cohesion.

The document contends that the current energy crisis is a "natural gas market crisis" caused by fossil fuel price volatility, specifically citing the Russian invasion of Ukraine and post-pandemic recovery. It argues that natural gas is incompatible with the 1.5°C and 2°C Paris Agreement targets, noting that global gas emissions rose 23% between 2010 and 2019. The briefing highlights that solar and onshore wind are now cheaper than gas for two-thirds of the global population and that new gas projects face significant stranded asset risks, such as a USD 13 billion risk in the UK by 2050. It dismisses Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) as an effective solution, noting that only 27 of over 260 projects undertaken between 1995 and 2018 were completed. Finally, it argues that for Africa, renewables are the fastest and cheapest way to expand energy access, as gas costs are projected to be double those of solar and wind by 2030.

The Institute for Economic Justice criticizes the $8.5-billion Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) in South Africa, arguing that its reliance on loans and private-sector 'de-risking' rather than grants will increase energy costs and benefit foreign investors while neglecting local manufacturing and worker protections. The document further condemns the secretive nature of the negotiations, which it claims undermines procedural justice and excludes key stakeholders.

The Institute for Economic Justice argues that South Africa's JETP is a flawed climate finance model that relies heavily on loans rather than grants, benefiting private Independent Power Producers (IPPs) while leaving the state with the financial risk. The author contends that the deal lacks transparency, fails to adequately fund the localization of the renewable energy value chain, and provides insufficient social security for workers in the coal belt.

The document argues that biogas and biomethane should primarily be reserved for hard-to-abate sectors like petrochemical production and industrial heating, as electrification via renewable energy is more cost-effective for power and heat. It highlights that biogas only addresses a minority of agricultural emissions (at most 28.9%) and warns that scaling production to meet targets, such as the EU's 35 bcm goal by 2030, could threaten food security by requiring significant arable land. Additionally, the briefing notes risks from fugitive methane emissions, high reliance on public subsidies, and safety hazards including explosions and toxicity.

The author argues that current climate efforts are in a 'catastrophic equilibrium' where unabated fossil fuel growth outpaces clean energy investment. To address this, the document advocates for three principles: recognizing the immense scale of the challenge by investing in all plausible zero-carbon technologies (including nuclear and carbon capture), moving beyond 'black box' economic models that ignore real-world constraints like land use and geopolitics, and embracing a diversified portfolio of strategies to hedge against uncertainty and risk.

The report argues that BEVs are generally not the optimal short-term decarbonization strategy for most Indian vehicle segments due to high costs, a coal-dependent electric grid, and poor cost-effectiveness per ton of CO2 reduced, with the notable exceptions of commercial three-wheelers and low-speed vehicles. It suggests that improving conventional engine efficiency, adopting mild hybrid technology, and increasing ethanol blending offer more viable near-term emissions reductions.

The report presents a preliminary techno-economic model for superhot rock energy, estimating that NOAK plants could achieve a competitive LCOE of $20-35 per megawatt-hour (MWh). The model categorizes costs into well field development, power plant construction, and project financing, assuming the commercial availability of innovations in deep drilling and reservoir creation. Sensitivity analysis identifies mass flow rate as the most critical driver of economics, followed by plant capacity and the drilling learning curve. The analysis emphasizes that while drilling costs are a significant part of well field expenses, they have a relatively small impact on overall LCOE compared to the power output per well.

The report finds that 15 major meat and dairy companies produce combined methane emissions of 12.8 million tonnes, representing 11.1% of global livestock-related methane. These emissions exceed the total methane footprints of countries like Russia, Canada, and Australia. The authors highlight a severe lack of corporate transparency, noting that 60% of the analyzed companies fail to report total supply chain (scope 3) emissions. The report criticizes governments for relying on 'techno fixes' like anaerobic digesters rather than reducing livestock numbers, and calls for binding targets and a just transition toward agroecology.

The report estimates that five major meat and ten major dairy companies emit approximately 12.8 million tonnes of methane, representing 11.1% of global anthropogenic methane emissions from livestock. These companies' total greenhouse gas emissions (734 million tonnes CO2 equivalent) exceed those of Germany. The authors highlight a significant lack of transparency, noting that 60% of these companies do not report full supply chain (Scope 3) emissions, and none report supply-chain methane. The document calls for mandatory emissions disclosure and a reduction in livestock numbers to meet the 1.5°C global warming limit.

The report finds that 15 major meat and dairy companies emit approximately 12.8 million tonnes of methane, representing 3.4% of global anthropogenic methane emissions and 11.1% of livestock-related methane. These combined emissions exceed the methane footprints of several countries, including Russia, Canada, Australia, and Germany. The authors highlight a pervasive lack of corporate transparency, noting that 60% of the companies fail to report total GHGs or scope 3 emissions, and none report supply chain methane. The report calls for mandatory reporting, binding reduction targets, and a systemic shift away from industrial animal agriculture.