Search Climate Insights Directory

The report analyzes climate accountability frameworks—systems that break long-term greenhouse gas targets into interim milestones—using case studies from jurisdictions like the UK, Aotearoa/New Zealand, British Columbia, and Manitoba. It identifies six common elements and associated best practices, such as legislating targets, ensuring independent expert advice, and using cumulative carbon budgets. For Canada, the authors recommend a national framework with legally binding milestones set only at the national level to avoid regional burden-sharing conflicts, while encouraging subnational governments to implement their own complementary frameworks. The report emphasizes a collaborative approach where the federal government provides policy backstops and financial incentives to ensure a resilient, multi-jurisdictional response to climate change.

The policy brief examines the gap between the EU Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) and the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), noting that the IED's exclusion of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions limits its effectiveness. It argues that the IED and ETS are complementary rather than duplicative, and recommends that the European Commission remove the exclusion of GHGs from the IED and introduce binding energy efficiency standards to drive industrial decarbonisation.

Between January 2017 and June 2020, Japanese public and private institutions provided at least US$23.4 billion in financing for LNG infrastructure across 10 countries. The report argues that the original rationales for this policy—energy security, climate friendliness, and economic viability—are now flawed due to the vulnerability of supply chains exposed by COVID-19, the high global warming potential of methane leakages, and the declining costs of renewable energy. It highlights that major Japanese banks (MUFG, Mizuho, and SMBC) provided the bulk of this funding, while five major trading companies saw a combined year-on-year profit drop of US$625 million in LNG-related businesses by March 2020. The document concludes that continuing to fund LNG infrastructure risks creating stranded assets and contradicts the UN's Principles for Responsible Banking.

Between January 2017 and June 2020, Japanese public and private institutions provided at least $23.4 billion in funding for LNG infrastructure across 10 countries. The report argues that this strategy, led by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), is flawed due to the high carbon footprint of LNG, the falling cost of renewable energy, and market volatility exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. It highlights significant financial risks, including potential stranded assets and declining profits for major Japanese trading houses, and calls for an immediate shift toward clean energy investments.

The document argues that Canada's post-pandemic reconstruction offers a historic opportunity to pivot toward a low-carbon economy. It outlines seven specific principles, or 'green strings,' to guide bailouts, stimulus, and recovery measures. These include requiring companies to develop net-zero plans, prohibiting stock buybacks and dividends for aid recipients, and ensuring a just transition for workers in high-carbon sectors. The report emphasizes that green stimulus can create as many jobs as neutral measures and calls for increased transparency, equity for Indigenous peoples, and the protection of environmental regulations during the recovery phase.

The document argues that Canada's economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic presents a unique opportunity to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy. It proposes seven 'green conditions' to guide government spending, including requiring companies to have net-zero plans, banning stock buybacks for aid recipients, and ensuring a just transition for workers. The report emphasizes that without deliberate conditions, recovery funds risk perpetuating unsustainable economic structures.

The report outlines the design and operationalization of a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system for Grenada's National Adaptation Plan (NAP). It identifies gaps in current data management—such as reliance on anecdotal knowledge and fragmented storage—and proposes a system to track goal achievement, implementation of Programmes of Action, and vulnerability reduction. The document recommends appointing a NAP M&E Coordinator and consolidating NAP indicators with the National Climate Change Policy (NCCP) outcomes to ensure a coherent approach to climate resilience.

The National Adaptation Plan (NAP) process is a strategic framework established in 2010 under the Cancun Adaptation Framework to help developing countries identify and address medium- and long-term climate adaptation priorities. It moves beyond ad hoc projects to embed adaptation into national development planning, budgeting, and decision-making. The process consists of three broad phases—planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E)—supported by enabling factors such as financing and capacity development. It is distinct from National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs), which focused on urgent short-term needs, and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), though it can operationalize the adaptation commitments within NDCs. The document emphasizes that a NAP is both a process and a document, and that effective processes must be country-driven, gender-responsive, and inclusive of the private sector and sub-national actors.

The document defines the NAP process as a strategic approach for countries to identify and respond to medium- and long-term climate adaptation priorities. It outlines the transition from short-term project-based interventions to systemic integration of adaptation into national development planning and budgeting. The process consists of a continuous cycle of planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E), supported by technical guidelines from the Least Developed Countries Expert Group (LDCEG). The text emphasizes that a NAP is both a document and a process, highlighting the importance of vertical integration between national and subnational levels, gender responsiveness, and private sector engagement. It further clarifies the synergy between NAPs, Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), the Paris Agreement, and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.

The report details how private equity firms like Blackstone, KKR, and Macquarie Infrastructure have acquired coal assets in the US, India, the Philippines, and Europe, often facing financial losses or environmental criticism. It contrasts these investments with a broader trend of coal decline, noting that US coal consumption dropped 44% since 2010 and renewable energy is expected to eclipse coal in the US by 2021.

The document highlights significant gaps in development finance, noting that general environment protection receives only 2% of total disbursements. It examines how the European refugee crisis impacted donor budgets, the difficulty of tracking finance for specific agendas like sustainable oceans, and the lack of data disaggregation by some donors. Additionally, it identifies a notably lower disbursement ratio for climate finance compared to general development aid, suggesting systemic implementation challenges.

The study assesses the integration of climate adaptation into energy efficiency projects in the Baltic Sea Region, finding that mitigation and adaptation are largely treated as separate policy areas. While new buildings more frequently implement adaptation measures above minimum standards, retrofitted buildings primarily focus on mitigation. The report identifies key synergies, such as green roofs and automated indoor climates, but notes that their implementation is often ad hoc rather than planned. Significant barriers include a lack of legal requirements, funding gaps, and limited awareness among developers.

The authors contend that EU stimulus plans must prioritize a zero-carbon future to avoid exacerbating climate risks. They highlight broad business support for this transition, citing various corporate coalitions and analysis suggesting that green projects offer higher short-term returns and more job creation than traditional stimulus. The statement calls for the strengthening of the European Green Deal, specifically targeting a 2030 emissions reduction of at least 55%, and recommends targeted investments in green infrastructure, innovation, and workforce reskilling.

The document examines the climate impact of the European Central Bank's (ECB) asset purchase programs, specifically the Corporate Sector Purchase Programme (CSPP) and the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme (PEPP). It highlights a significant lack of transparency regarding the value of held assets and argues that the ECB's 'market neutrality' principle results in a portfolio heavily weighted toward carbon-intensive sectors. The report identifies 38 fossil fuel companies in the ECB's portfolio, including 10 linked to coal and several majors like Shell, Total, and Eni. It concludes with recommendations for the ECB to exclude companies without 1.5°C-aligned exit plans and to adopt a 'brown taxonomy' to better target asset purchases.

The report analyzes the ECB's corporate asset purchase programs (CSPP and PEPP), finding that they provide significant financial support to companies active in coal, oil, and gas. It criticizes the ECB's lack of transparency regarding asset values and argues that the principle of 'market neutrality' creates an anti-climate bias by favoring carbon-intensive sectors. The author recommends that the ECB exclude fossil fuel companies without phase-out plans and align its monetary policy with the 1.5°C trajectory of the Paris Agreement.

The document argues that the massive fiscal stimulus required for COVID-19 recovery presents a unique opportunity to transition to a low-carbon economy. It suggests that climate-aligned investments offer higher returns than traditional spending, citing benefit-cost ratios for adaptation between 2:1 and 10:1. The author proposes seven action areas: managing corporate bailouts with emissions targets, investing in climate-smart infrastructure (such as renewable energy and nature-based solutions), promoting regulatory reform, reforming tax and subsidy policies (including cutting fossil fuel subsidies), integrating climate risks into financial regulations, enhancing the role of development finance institutions, and sponsoring R&D for new technologies. The text emphasizes that green investments can create more jobs than fossil fuel investments, noting that in the US, $1 million spent on renewable energy creates 7.5 FTE jobs compared to 2.7 in fossil fuels.

The document identifies three primary transmission modes for SARS-CoV-2: direct physical contact, intermediate inanimate objects, and respiratory droplets or aerosols. It highlights that fine particles (<10 µm) can reach pulmonary alveoli, while larger droplets (>100 µm) contribute primarily to contact transmission. Environmental factors such as low temperatures and specific relative humidity levels are noted to increase virus survival, while solar ultraviolet radiation acts as a natural virucide. The report discusses correlations between high levels of atmospheric pollutants, such as NO2 and PM2.5, and increased COVID-19 mortality and incidence in regions including Northern Italy, Spain, China, and the United States, suggesting that pollution may predispose individuals to more severe infections.

The document identifies three primary transmission routes for SARS-CoV-2: direct physical contact, intermediate inanimate objects, and respiratory droplets or aerosols. It highlights that indoor environments significantly increase contagion risk and that climatic factors like low temperature and specific relative humidity levels can enhance virus survival. A substantial portion of the text examines the correlation between air pollution—specifically NO2 and PM2.5—and increased COVID-19 mortality and incidence in regions such as Northern Italy, Spain, China, and the US. It also discusses the potential role of global warming in altering transmission patterns through changes in human behavior and animal migration.

California's bottle bill, once successful with 85% recycling rates, has seen redemption rates fall to 66% due to the closure of recycling centers. This has resulted in consumers receiving only 2.65 cents of their 5-cent deposit on average, with $400 million in deposits failing to return to residents annually. A YouGov poll from March 2020 indicates 37% of Californians are unaware of the bill and 53% do not use redemption centers. The COVID-19 pandemic has further decreased onsite redemption. The document proposes reforming the system using "no-touch" reverse vending machines (RVMs) and bag-drop systems, and increasing the number of redemption sites. It suggests using part of the $400 million in the Beverage Container Recycling Fund for modernization. A system with a 90% redemption rate could provide $1.2 billion in annual refunds to residents, secure 8,000 existing jobs, and create 5,000 new ones. The briefing references a study by Eunomia Research & Consulting comparing California to best-in-class systems in Oregon, Michigan, Norway, and Germany.

The report argues that a deposit return system (DRS) is the most cost-effective and environmentally sound method for Austria to achieve the EU's target of collecting 90% of plastic bottles by 2029. It identifies a powerful coalition—led by Altstoff Recycling Austria (ARA) and including major retailers like REWE Group, Spar, Hofer, and Lidl, as well as beverage companies—that is lobbying the Austrian government against a DRS to protect licensing fee revenues and market dominance. The document highlights that 83% of Austrians support a DRS and rebuts industry claims that current collection rates are sufficient or that a DRS would be too expensive.