Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that investment treaties function as 'unpriced public insurance' that shifts political and regulatory risks from private investors to host states. Unlike other de-risking tools like political risk insurance or blended finance, treaties often lack pricing mechanisms, performance benchmarks, or environmental and human rights safeguards. This creates an asymmetrical regime where host states face substantial downside risks and contingent fiscal liabilities, which can be exacerbated by large investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) awards. The authors recommend that policy-makers assess treaties alongside other risk-allocation tools, terminate redundant agreements, and coordinate across finance ministries and development banks to prevent 'double recovery' and ensure transparent risk sharing.

The document proposes a functional shift in how investment treaties are viewed, categorizing them as a form of 'unpriced public insurance' that transfers political and regulatory risks from private investors to host states. It argues that unlike other de-risking tools, treaties often lack performance conditions or sustainability safeguards, creating asymmetric financial burdens for states, particularly in the Global South. The brief recommends that policymakers evaluate treaties alongside other risk-mitigation tools to avoid redundancies and ensure that investment governance supports climate transitions and public accountability.

Friends of the Earth International asserts that transnational corporations (TNCs) drive the climate and ecological crises while utilizing an international legal architecture to avoid accountability. The organization advocates for the UN Binding Treaty on Transnational Corporations and Human Rights as a necessary mechanism to prioritize human rights and planetary health over corporate profit. The text specifically denounces the influence of corporate lobbying groups, such as the International Organisation of Employers and the International Chamber of Commerce, which it claims seek to weaken the treaty by promoting voluntary codes of conduct and self-regulation. It emphasizes that climate justice is a human rights struggle led by affected communities, particularly in the Global South, and links the treaty's success to the broader goal of dismantling corporate power ahead of COP30.

The Global Forum for Digital Justice, a coalition of Global South civil society organizations, argues that the 'Broligarchy'—Silicon Valley companies aligned with the US government—threatens international norms, human rights, and ecological justice. The statement claims that digital spaces have shifted from tools of creativity to instruments of surveillance and oppression, with AI and data being used as weapons that contribute to labor precariousness and climate catastrophes. It calls for a transition to digital infrastructures as common goods rather than commodities, urging international solidarity for a democratic digital order, government action to limit corporate monopolies, and global civic mobilization.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) asserts that current debt restructuring mechanisms, such as the G20’s Common Framework, are insufficient because they treat indebtedness as a liquidity issue rather than a structural result of colonial legacies and trade imbalances. The paper advocates for a Global South Debtors’ Coalition to coordinate negotiations and collective economic planning, focusing on food sovereignty, energy independence, and industrial policy. It proposes a "Bargain of the Century" to leverage the Global South's resources and market size to secure fairer trade and technology transfers, particularly during South Africa's G20 Presidency.

The document examines how international human rights law can reshape sovereign debt restructuring to protect socio-economic rights in the Global South. It identifies key principles—including the right to development, self-determination, and good faith—that should replace the current 'non-system' of contractual negotiations. The authors advocate for a legally binding statutory mechanism under the United Nations to ensure transparency, prevent abusive holdout litigation by vulture funds, and prioritize minimum standards of living over creditor interests.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) advocates for increased finance from international financial institutions, multilateral development banks, and the G20 to support a green, inclusive, and just transition. The IEJ emphasizes the need for nationally-owned development strategies where the state leads investment, leveraging central banks and development finance institutions to encourage private capital. In South Africa, the IEJ has specifically critiqued the lack of transparency in IFI loan agreements, calling for parliamentary oversight to protect national sovereignty and human rights. Regarding climate finance, the IEJ argues that South Africa's Just Energy Transition Partnership (JET-P) should utilize risk-sharing arrangements in public-private partnerships that do not prioritize private profits over public goods. Additionally, the IEJ advocates for a human-rights-based approach to debt restructuring in the Global South, proposing that loans be provided on concessional terms with below-market-rate interest and long grace periods.

The document identifies a strategic shift from outright climate denial to 'strategic doubt,' where influential economic and political actors—including fossil fuel companies and right-wing populist movements—deliberately spread misleading information to obstruct climate action. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of these campaigns, which are disseminated through traditional media, social media, and non-public corporate channels. The report notes a significant research gap in the Global South and proposes four policy interventions: mandatory standardized carbon reporting, litigation against greenwashing, the creation of cross-sectoral voluntary alliances, and the enhancement of scientific and media literacy for the public and officials.

The document introduces a collection of research on natural resource conflicts in the Global South, specifically highlighting the struggles of poor rural populations to maintain resource access. The authors argue that the diversity of these conflicts makes general causal theories problematic, proposing instead the application of 'middle-range theory' to better understand the specific dynamics of conflict and cooperation.

The document critiques biodiversity offsetting and crediting mechanisms, asserting that they simplify complex ecosystems into tradable units, facilitate greenwashing by corporations, and threaten the land rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. It argues that these market-based approaches are 'worse than nothing' because they provide an illusion of progress while bypassing the mitigation hierarchy. Instead, the authors advocate for transformational change, the redirection of harmful subsidies, and the provision of biodiversity finance through grants and direct access to Indigenous-led governance systems.

The report identifies a shift from outright climate denial to 'strategic skepticism,' where powerful economic and political actors—including fossil fuel companies and right-wing populist movements—undermine climate action by questioning the viability and cost of solutions. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of this disinformation, which is disseminated through social media, traditional media, and corporate sustainability reports. This erosion of information integrity leads to a loss of public trust in climate science and a feedback loop of political inaction. The document recommends four key interventions: legislation for standardized carbon reporting and content labeling, judicial action against greenwashing, the formation of cross-sector coalitions, and enhanced scientific and media education for the public and policymakers.

The document identifies a shift from outright climate denialism to 'strategic skepticism,' where influential entities—including fossil fuel companies and right-wing populist movements—undermine climate action by questioning the economic efficiency and causes of climate change. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of this disinformation, which is disseminated through social media, corporate sustainability reports, and interpersonal networks. The report argues that this environment erodes public trust in climate science and creates a cycle of political inaction. To combat this, the authors recommend standardized carbon reporting legislation, legal action against 'greenwashing,' the creation of multi-stakeholder coalitions, and the enhancement of scientific and media literacy for both the public and officials.

The document identifies a shift from absolute climate denial to 'strategic skepticism,' where powerful economic and political actors intentionally spread misleading narratives to obstruct climate action. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of this disinformation, which erodes public trust in science and creates a feedback loop of political inaction. To counter this, the report recommends standardized carbon reporting legislation, litigation against greenwashing, the formation of multi-stakeholder coalitions, and enhanced scientific and media literacy.

The report identifies a shift from outright climate denialism to 'strategic skepticism,' where powerful economic and political actors sow doubt about the feasibility and cost of climate solutions. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of this misinformation, which is disseminated through corporate reports, lobbies, and social media, ultimately eroding public trust and delaying climate action. The document recommends four key policy levers: standardized carbon reporting legislation, litigation against greenwashing, the creation of multi-stakeholder coalitions, and enhanced science and media literacy.

The International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE) urges the Australian government to implement mandatory standardized climate disclosure to stop greenwashing, create transparent tracking systems for climate communication funding to expose hidden influence networks, and integrate climate information literacy and 'inoculation' strategies into education curricula to build public resilience.

This white paper by the Green Economy Coalition argues that transitioning to a circular economy (CE)—characterized by recycling, reusing, and refurbishing—is essential for achieving a green, just, and inclusive transition and meeting global climate and social targets.

The statement highlights that persons with disabilities are disproportionately affected by climate change due to systemic discrimination and barriers to emergency services. It critiques South Africa's current climate frameworks for lacking specific details on accessible infrastructure and tailored adaptation measures, calling for the integration of disability-inclusive design and representation in decision-making processes.

A global network of women leaders from business, politics, and civil society urges world leaders to accelerate carbon pollution reduction. They demand that by 2025, governments increase NDC ambition to align with the 1.5°C limit, phase out fossil fuels, triple renewables, double energy efficiency, halt deforestation, and mobilize public and private finance, particularly for the Global South.

The report examines the landscape of urban resilience solutions in informal contexts across the Global South, finding that while diverse solutions exist, most are in early development stages. It highlights the critical role of philanthropic and research grants for early-stage testing and notes that these interventions often yield co-benefits in sustainable development, health, and gender equity.

The policy brief contends that carbon markets are a flawed mechanism that fails to provide real climate finance, instead allowing Global North polluters to avoid direct emission reductions while potentially harming Global South communities.