Search Climate Insights Directory

The document exposes lobbying efforts by large polluters and the aviation industry to undermine climate action during the pandemic. It details attempts by groups like BusinessEurope and national trade associations in France, Germany, and the Netherlands to delay legislation and carbon taxes. It specifically critiques the aviation industry's push for unconditional bailouts and efforts to weaken the CORSIA carbon market baseline. The author argues that the pandemic should be used to accelerate a green recovery rather than return to business-as-usual, recommending the phase-out of free pollution permits and the introduction of fuel taxes.

A joint letter from various environmental and climate organizations calling on global insurance associations to ensure COVID-19 stimulus packages support a low-carbon transition rather than fossil fuel industries, while urging the insurance sector to end coverage for coal and oil and gas expansion.

ClientEarth and IISD Europe argue that the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) acts as an obstacle to climate action due to its investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, which allows energy companies to challenge environmental regulations. They contend that the European Commission's current modernisation proposal is insufficient because it maintains the ability for investors to bypass national courts and seek high damages awards. The authors propose a specific ISDS carve-out for climate measures, a requirement for investors to exhaust domestic legal remedies first, and a redesign of the treaty to differentiate between low-carbon and carbon-intensive energy investments.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development and ClientEarth argue that the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) is an outdated obstacle to climate action due to its investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism. They contend that the European Commission's current modernisation proposal is insufficient because it maintains the ability for investors to bypass national courts and seek high damages for climate-related regulations. The authors call for a redesign of the ECT that differentiates between low-carbon and carbon-intensive investments, carves out climate response measures from ISDS, and requires investors to exhaust domestic legal remedies first.

The document advocates for the issuance of common European debt to fund a sustainable recovery from the Covid-19 crisis. It proposes a 'Green Solidarity Fund' that would exclude fossil fuel activities and prioritize environmental protection and social equity. The author argues that a green recovery is only possible if it includes a rapid phase-out of coal, oil, and gas to meet Paris Agreement goals, suggesting that the debt could be reimbursed through a carbon frontier tax or financial transaction taxes.

The statement argues that the COVID-19 pandemic has created an urgent need for governments to focus all resources on public health, specifically the procurement of medical supplies, vaccines, and medicines. It calls for the immediate suspension of trade and investment negotiations at the WTO, bilateral, and regional levels, asserting that such activities divert critical resources and personnel. The authors highlight that intellectual property rules under the WTO's TRIPS agreement and free trade agreements may obstruct the affordability and accessibility of life-saving supplies. The document demands the removal of all trade barriers and unilateral sanctions that hinder medical procurement and urges a fundamental rethink of trade rules that encourage monopolies and limit healthcare access.

Friends of the Earth International and a broad coalition of global endorsers call for an immediate cessation of trade and investment treaty negotiations. They argue that governments, particularly in developing and least developed countries, lack the resources to engage in these negotiations while managing the COVID-19 health crisis. The statement demands that trade negotiators focus exclusively on removing obstacles, such as intellectual property rules and unilateral sanctions, that hinder access to affordable vaccines, medicines, and diagnostics.

The briefing critiques the European Commission's draft proposal to modernise the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), asserting that it fails to adequately protect the EU's regulatory autonomy or shield climate policies from investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) challenges. It argues that the proposal maintains an outdated focus on investment protection and lacks binding sustainability mechanisms, a requirement to exhaust local remedies, and a specific carve-out for climate response measures. The author concludes that without fundamental shifts—such as differentiating between low-carbon and carbon-intensive investments and establishing a supremacy clause for environmental obligations—the ECT will continue to create a 'chilling effect' on essential environmental and social regulations.

The briefing warns that emergency government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic—such as lockdowns, medical supply requisitions, and export bans—create an unprecedented risk of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) claims under over 3,000 investment treaties. It highlights the unpredictability of arbitration tribunals and the high cost of defense, citing historical examples from Argentina and Egypt where states faced multi-billion dollar awards. The authors call for a coordinated global response, potentially through the UN or WTO, to suspend ISDS for pandemic measures or issue joint interpretations of the 'state of necessity' defense. As an interim measure, it suggests states may withdraw their consent to arbitration.

The briefing warns that emergency COVID-19 measures—such as lockdowns, nationalization of health services, and export bans—risk triggering a wave of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) claims under over 3,000 investment treaties. It highlights the unpredictability of arbitration tribunals and the high cost of defense, which can average 8 million USD per case. Using historical examples like Argentina's 2001 crisis, the document illustrates how such claims can result in billions of dollars in awards, potentially undermining national health budgets and IMF rescue packages. The authors call for a coordinated global response via the UN, UNCTAD, or UNCITRAL to suspend arbitration for COVID-19 measures or issue joint interpretations of the 'state of necessity' defense. As an interim measure, it suggests that states may unilaterally withdraw their consent to arbitration.

Since 2015, the Law and Justice (PiS) party has led Poland toward Euroscepticism and the erosion of the rule of law. The author argues that PiS's worldview creates critical contradictions: while seeking to reduce dependence on Russian gas and oil, the government has increased imports of cheaper Russian coal and lacks a strategic plan for renewable energy, leading to a rise in carbon emissions. Simultaneously, while opening the labor market to Ukrainian workers for economic reasons, PiS has overseen a deterioration in bilateral relations with Ukraine and tightened citizenship laws, potentially priming the country for a nationalistic backlash.

The Institute for Economic Justice argues that South Africa must implement bold, decisive economic stimulus measures focused on four objectives: supporting households and communities, protecting workers, sustaining businesses, and managing the economy for long-term transformation. The authors advocate for universal income transfers, emergency paid sick pay, conditional business relief, and a 'Green New Deal' to ensure a more equitable and sustainable recovery. They emphasize that financing these measures should avoid austerity-driven reprioritization and instead rely on solidarity taxation and increased borrowing.

The author contends that nationalistic responses to Covid-19 are insufficient and that the G20, chaired by Saudi Arabia, should convene to coordinate fiscal, monetary, and scientific efforts. The text emphasizes the vulnerability of Africa's public health systems and calls for the establishment of a global medical stockpiles reserve to address long-term health inequality and supply chain failures.

The document argues that the energy transition requires a participatory governance approach to ensure public acceptance and the effective integration of prosumers and energy communities. It advocates for the full implementation of the Aarhus Convention and Maastricht Recommendations, highlighting that current public consultation processes, such as those for National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs), have often been ineffective. The brief provides a detailed framework for future consultations, including specific timelines and the recognition of prosumers as a distinct stakeholder group.

ClientEarth challenges the planned Belgian capacity mechanism (Planned CM), asserting that it lacks a complete design and fails to demonstrate a genuine resource adequacy concern. The organisation argues that the scheme would unfairly favour gas capacity, contradicting EU objectives to phase out environmentally harmful subsidies and hindering decarbonisation. It further contends that the Belgian electricity market's resilience and the availability of less distortive alternatives, such as strategic reserves and market reforms, render a market-wide capacity mechanism unnecessary. ClientEarth also warns that the Planned CM could strengthen the market dominance of existing oligopolistic players and lacks sufficient preference mechanisms for low-carbon resources.

The authors examine the experiences of villagers near the Garzweiler mine in the Rhineland, where lignite extraction continues to displace communities. They argue that the resettlement process is characterized by procedural injustice, as German federal mining law prioritizes resource extraction over residents' interests. The document highlights the failure of the 'joint resettlement' model to address non-material losses, such as the loss of 'Heimat' (homeland) and the erosion of social structures. It further links these local struggles to Germany's broader failure to accelerate its energy transition (Energiewende), noting that the country remains Europe's largest carbon emitter. The text describes the emergence of activist movements like Alle Dörfer Bleiben and Ende Gelände as responses to political inaction and the perceived entanglement between the government and the mining industry.

The research paper examines Turkey's efforts to re-assert regional influence through military and economic engagement in North and East Africa. It highlights Turkey's support for the Government of National Accord (GNA) in Libya, its strategic energy interests in the Mediterranean, and its long-term development and diplomatic presence in the Horn of Africa, particularly Somalia. The text notes the complex interplay between Turkey, Russia, and the EU in managing the Libyan crisis, as well as Turkey's rivalry with a bloc including Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

The global green bond and green loan market reached a record USD 257.7 billion in 2019, a 51% increase over 2018. Growth was primarily driven by Europe, which accounted for 45% of global issuance. The USA, China, and France remained the top-ranked countries, together representing 44% of the market. Energy and Buildings were the dominant sectors for use of proceeds, each holding approximately 30% market share. Certified Climate Bonds grew by 86% to reach USD 45 billion, with cumulative certified issuance surpassing the USD 100 billion milestone. The market also saw increased diversification with debut issuances from emerging markets including Kenya, Barbados, and Saudi Arabia.

The document examines the erosion of the EU's longstanding consensus on a two-state solution for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It highlights how internal divisions—exemplified by the opposing positions of Sweden and Hungary, and the alignment of the Visegrád Four with the Israeli government—undermine the EU's capacity for a concerted foreign policy. Despite possessing a wide array of policy tools to pressure both the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority, the authors argue that the EU's risk-averse nature and complex structure make significant policy shifts unlikely, leaving the bloc 'stuck in the logic of Oslo'.

The document traces the development of the bioeconomy concept from its roots in biotechnology and life sciences to a broader policy framework aimed at sustainability and climate goals. It highlights the EU's leadership in establishing bioeconomy strategies, which have influenced national policies globally. The text distinguishes between biotechnology-centered and transformation-centered approaches, while emphasizing that bio-based products are not inherently sustainable. It also discusses the rise of regional bioeconomy clusters and the need for participatory governance and life-cycle assessments to ensure genuine ecological benefits.