Search Climate Insights Directory

The document outlines a comprehensive approach to deliberative democracy applied to the climate crisis. It details a five-phase process—preparation, learning, reflection, recommendation drafting, and decision-making—supported by independent governance structures. The guide emphasizes inclusivity, accessibility, and the use of both digital and physical tools to ensure a representative sample of citizens can produce legitimate policy recommendations for governments and social actors.

The document advocates for banning fossil fuel advertisements to prevent the industry from using greenwashing and disinformation to maintain its 'social license to operate'. It highlights existing partial bans in France and efforts in 10 countries, including Australia, Canada, Ireland, and South Africa, as well as over 50 cities. The text compares the fossil fuel industry to the tobacco industry, suggesting that similar regulatory tools are needed to protect public health and enable climate action. It also discusses the role of litigation, corporate campaigns like Clean Creatives, and the targeting of advertising finances to dismantle the industry's influence on public opinion.

The document argues that the rapid growth of generative AI is driving a significant increase in electricity demand, which threatens climate goals by incentivising the continued use of fossil fuels and diverting clean energy resources. It highlights a lack of transparency in corporate emissions reporting, where 'market-based' accounting masks actual grid impacts, and warns that 'moonshot' technology promises like nuclear fusion may act as mitigation deterrence. Specific examples include data centre growth in Ireland and Malaysia, and the rising emissions profiles of companies like Microsoft and Google.

The analysis identifies a significant gap between announced CO2 capture ambitions and the development of geological storage capacity in Europe, particularly in the short term. While Europe possesses a theoretical storage potential of approximately 507 Gt, the time required to develop storage sites (5 to 15 years) lags behind the faster implementation of capture projects. By 2025, a shortage of around 15 Mt/year is expected, and by 2030, the gap widens to approximately 40 Mt/year, with available capacity meeting only half of the 82 Mt/year demand. The report notes that many capture projects are concentrated in industrial clusters, but several countries—including Belgium, France, Germany, Poland, and Sweden—have no announced storage projects despite capture ambitions, necessitating cross-border storage solutions.

The briefing argues that the EU's RePowerEU target to produce 35 billion m3 of biomethane by 2030 lacks an environmental impact assessment, creating risks of methane leakage and the intensification of industrial livestock farming. It finds that no existing EU policy sufficiently mitigates the environmental and social impacts of the sector, and that financial frameworks may channel over €37 billion into projects without robust sustainability checks. The report highlights a systemic issue with methane leaks, noting that real-world losses may be higher than official estimates, and warns that using biomethane to maintain existing gas grids could delay the phase-out of fossil fuels.

The European Union is the global leader in biogas production, reaching 22.8 billion m3 in 2024. While promoted as a renewable energy source, the report argues that the sector risks causing significant environmental harm through methane leakages, the incentivisation of industrial animal farming, and the use of food crops as feedstock. It further contends that the injection of biomethane into existing gas grids may postpone the transition to truly sustainable energy systems by locking in fossil gas infrastructure. The report examines the policy landscapes of seven European countries, noting that while most support biogas expansion, regulatory safeguards against these environmental risks are often insufficient. It also details the role of major oil, gas, utility, and agri-food companies in the sector and identifies the primary financial institutions providing credit and investment to biogas producers.

The report analyzes EFSA data from 2007-2014, finding that acrylamide levels in many European foods remain unchanged or are increasing despite voluntary industry 'toolboxes'. It highlights significant benchmark exceedances in baby foods and specific products in Belgium and Denmark, concluding that the European Commission's proposal to mandate codes of practice without setting enforceable legal limits is insufficient to protect consumers.

The report details how a network of industry associations and lobby groups, including PlasticsEurope and EUROPEN, worked to weaken the EU's circular economy goals and the Single-Use Plastics Directive. It highlights specific efforts to avoid mandatory tethered bottle caps and to delay separate collection targets. In Austria, the report describes a coalition of retailers and beverage companies, orchestrated by Altstoff Recycling Austria AG (ARA), that has lobbied against the introduction of a deposit return system despite strong public support and evidence of its effectiveness.

The document analyzes the global debate over water privatization, contrasting the view of water as an economic good promoted by international financial institutions with the view of water as a human right. It details the role of the World Bank and IMF in pushing privatization through loan conditionalities and provides case studies of both failed privatization (Cochabamba, Bolivia) and successful participatory public management (Porto Alegre, Brazil).

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) has developed a Climate Risk Assessment Letter to help pension fund beneficiaries engage trustees on the management of climate-related financial risks. The guide argues that failing to monitor these risks—which include regulatory, technology, and litigation risks—may constitute a breach of fiduciary duty. It highlights that global financial institutions and some national funds, such as those in Norway and Ireland, are already reassessing or divesting from fossil fuel assets to protect long-term returns.

The document outlines the role of green bonds in transforming financial centres into sustainable hubs, highlighting European market leadership and specific city-level case studies in listing, sovereign issuance, and development banking.

DNV GL has provided limited assurance that NAB's proposed SDG Green Bond complies with the Climate Bonds Standard Version 2.1 (CBS v2.1) and relevant Sector Technical Criteria. The verification covers a portfolio of eligible assets including wind, solar, marine renewables, electrified passenger rail, and commercial buildings. DNV GL also conducted a qualitative review confirming the bond's alignment with several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs), specifically targets related to affordable and clean energy, industry innovation and infrastructure, and sustainable cities and communities.

The report highlights a significant gap between current EU agricultural emissions trends and the 2030 and 2050 climate targets. It identifies the absence of agriculture from the EU Taxonomy as a major barrier to defining sustainable activities. The author proposes repurposing the CAP, which accounts for approximately 30% of the EU budget, to fund a transition that requires an estimated annual public investment of EUR 155bn to reduce emissions by 53% by 2050. Key recommendations include adopting science-based sectoral criteria, reforming payment structures to reward green practices, and potentially extending the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) to agrifood products to prevent carbon leakage.

The document provides a scientific and legal basis for the European Court of Human Rights to assess State due diligence regarding climate change. It emphasizes the urgency of limiting warming to 1.5°C to avoid irreversible damage and tipping points, noting that current global emissions trends are insufficient. It highlights severe health risks in Europe, including heat-related mortality, and argues that under the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC, States have a 'best efforts' obligation to pursue the highest possible ambition in emissions reductions. ClientEarth asserts that failure to meet international climate commitments constitutes a prima facie violation of human rights obligations, and that adaptation measures cannot substitute for necessary mitigation.

The document argues that Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) are essential, self-standing legal obligations that must be conducted prior to the adoption of plans to effectively influence policy and assess cumulative climate impacts. It specifically contends that for fossil fuel projects, failing to assess 'downstream' emissions—which can exceed extraction emissions by up to 900%—renders an assessment partial and misleading. ClientEarth links these procedural requirements to the European Convention on Human Rights, asserting that fossil fuel extraction constitutes 'dangerous industrial activities' and that the principle of intergenerational equity requires the Court to consider the disproportionate risks posed to future generations and young people under Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention.

The document argues that the EU is failing to meet its 2020 goal of ending overfishing due to Total Allowable Catches (TACs) being set above scientific advice, particularly by certain Member States. It recommends following scientific advice to achieve Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY), properly enforcing the landing obligation, increasing transparency in the TAC-setting process, and ensuring honest reporting on progress.

The document assesses plastic pollution in China, highlighting significant production and leakage into oceans, and contrasts this with the EU's comprehensive regulatory framework. It details EU strategies such as the Waste Framework Directive, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), and the 'Plastics 2030' strategy, which aims for 100% reusable or recyclable plastic packaging by 2030. The report suggests China adopt similar integrated land-sea management, eco-design standards, and international cooperation to combat plastic waste.

The document offers detailed guidance on defining, regulating, and supporting Renewable Energy Communities (RECs) and Citizen Energy Communities (CECs) under the EU's Clean Energy Package. It emphasizes the need for non-commercial purposes, democratic governance, and the removal of administrative barriers to empower citizens in the energy transition. The guide provides specific recommendations on legal forms, effective control, market access, and the design of support schemes, while drawing on examples from various EU Member States and the US to illustrate best practices for implementation.

The paper examines the history and current state of EU environmental governance, detailing the roles of the Commission, Parliament, Council, and Court of Justice. It highlights a systemic failure in the enforcement of environmental law by Member States and the Commission, noting that economic interests frequently override environmental concerns. The author argues that the EU's 'good governance' principles of openness and participation are poorly implemented, leaving environmental NGOs with limited influence and citizens with minimal access to justice. While the EU has a comprehensive body of legislation, the author concludes that the lack of political will makes much of it a 'paper tiger'.

A group of NGOs argues that the European Commission's proposal to amend the Aarhus Regulation fails to meet international law standards for access to justice. The statement highlights that the current internal review mechanism is ineffective, with most NGO requests rejected as inadmissible. The signatories demand amendments to include 'implementing measures', State aid decisions, and cost protections for NGOs to ensure the delivery of the European Green Deal and compliance with the Aarhus Convention.