Search Climate Insights Directory

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 document examines how ISDS mechanisms are used by foreign investors to challenge environmental and climate policies, often resulting in 'regulatory chill' where states avoid enacting laws for fear of costly arbitration. It highlights the lack of transparency in these proceedings and the limited role of public participation and amicus briefs. The authors argue that investment treaties have a negligible effect on promoting foreign direct investment (FDI) but impose significant costs on human rights and the environment, particularly in the Global South. The submission recommends the termination of old-generation treaties, the carving out of climate measures from ISDS scope, and a shift toward resolving disputes in domestic courts.

A coalition of European civil society organisations (CSOs) is protesting a campaign of disinformation led by some Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) from the European People’s Party (EPP) and far-right groups. The attack specifically targets the legitimacy of public funding for environmental NGOs under the LIFE programme. The statement argues that independent CSOs are essential for a functioning democracy and a fully informed decision-making process, contrasting the modest public grants received by NGOs with the high spending of corporate lobbyists in Brussels.

ClientEarth employs a legal-centric strategy to enforce environmental laws, challenge corporate pollution, and reshape financial systems. Key achievements include winning the right for the public to challenge the EU in court on environmental decisions, securing the closure of coal plants in Europe, and litigating against fossil fuel companies for misleading advertising and abandoned wells. The organization focuses on four primary pillars: breaking new legal ground for justice, aligning financial flows with planetary needs, transforming food and land use, and phasing out fossil fuels in energy and transport.

The document argues that EMFAF funds are being used in ways that contradict EU environmental goals and international obligations, specifically by underfunding marine biodiversity and failing to prioritise small-scale fisheries. It highlights a systemic gap where 5–12% of funds are allocated to environmentally harmful subsidies, exceeding biodiversity spending by more than twofold. Analysis of several Member States shows that most fall far below a recommended 25% allocation for conservation and restoration. The brief also warns that proposed changes to the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) risk further diluting these priorities by removing the EMFAF as a stand-alone fund and lacking mandatory spending targets for biodiversity and the decarbonisation of the fishing fleet.

This factsheet highlights the governance gaps in the EU's management of small-scale fisheries (SSF), specifically vessels under 12 metres. It argues that the lack of mandatory tracking and catch reporting for these vessels leads to insufficient data for stock assessments and undermines marine conservation. The document recommends the adoption of cost-effective tracking devices and electronic logbooks for all vessels, regardless of size, to ensure a level playing field and more reliable fisheries management.

The document highlights a significant disparity in EU fisheries funding, noting that while small-scale fishers make up 70% of the European fleet, they receive only 20% of EU funds. It identifies administrative complexity, bank guarantee requirements, and a lack of tailored support as primary barriers that favor industrial operators over sustainable, artisanal fishing. The brief recommends streamlining application procedures, removing banking barriers, creating dedicated budgets for small-scale fishers, and increasing the representation of these fishers in EU decision-making processes.

Climate Strategies proposes five operational avenues for the first 2025 JTWP dialogue, including a non-prescriptive governance framework, a case study repository, a resource database, justice-focused metrics, and a global governance architecture. For the second 2025 dialogue, it recommends addressing climate resilience, restorative justice, transition minerals, and deep dives into neglected sectors like food and health systems. The submission also suggests reforming the dialogue format to combine workshops with discussions to better facilitate the sharing of real-world practitioner experiences.

The document argues that the EU's 2030 framework must combine price-based instruments with structural and behavioural policies to drive decarbonisation. It suggests reforming the EU ETS to better signal long-term scarcity and phase out coal, introducing new auctioning and project-based mechanisms for non-ETS sectors to ensure liquidity and transformation resources, and establishing a streamlined governance mechanism for Member State coordination through national decarbonisation plans.

The Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) evaluated the MRV systems of four countries—China, Germany, Italy, and the United States—using six criteria: transparency, comparability, reliability, usefulness, timeliness, and completeness. The analysis finds that while emissions tracking is generally well-established, all four nations struggle to comprehensively and consistently track the actual impact of their climate policies. Most systems rely on pre-implementation forecasts rather than retrospective analysis, making it difficult for policymakers to identify the most cost-effective and efficient mitigation actions.

The report analyzes the shift from stalled global climate negotiations toward national and subnational policy actions. It examines sectoral emissions drivers and the effectiveness of various policy instruments—including carbon pricing, renewable energy mandates, and energy efficiency programs—across Brazil, China, the EU, India, and the US, while emphasizing the role of innovation and finance in achieving low-carbon growth.

The STARRS pilot project, initiated by Climate Group and Climate TRACE, demonstrates how satellite imagery and artificial intelligence can provide timely, granular greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions data for subnational governments. By tracking six pilot regions—Abruzzo (Italy), Basque Country (Spain), Jalisco (Mexico), Querétaro (Mexico), Pernambuco (Brazil), and Western Cape (South Africa)—the project addressed common barriers to emissions accounting, such as high costs and long timeframes associated with traditional bottom-up methods. The project provided historical data from 2015 to 2021 across sectors including electricity, heavy industry, and road transport, while also mapping biomass changes. Findings for the pilot regions highlighted specific emission drivers, such as the dominance of the Bilbao Refinery in the Basque Country's oil and gas sector and the significant impact of feedlots in Jalisco and Western Cape.

The report analyzes how the EU chemical sector has avoided the costs of carbon pollution through free allowances under the EU ETS, noting that 98% of emissions since 2013 were covered. It highlights that the sector remains a major emitter, with emissions increasing in 2024, and that the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) currently only covers a small fraction of the industry. The author argues that this system protects polluters and hinders decarbonization, specifically citing BASF as an example of a company receiving more allowances than it needs while opposing carbon costs. The report recommends a clear phase-out timeline for free allowances, more ambitious benchmarking, and the introduction of decarbonization conditionalities.

The Social Climate Fund (SCF) is an EU initiative designed to mitigate the social impacts of the new Emissions Trading System (ETS2), which applies carbon pricing to fuels used in buildings and road transport. Operating from 2026 to 2032, the fund will provide approximately €86.7 billion in targeted support for lower-income groups and micro-enterprises. Member states must submit Social Climate Plans (SCPs) by June 2025 to access funding, which is allocated based on need. While the SCF supports investments in energy-saving renovations and zero-emission transport, it is limited to alleviating new poverty risks and is deemed insufficient to address the root causes of existing energy and transport poverty in Europe. The document recommends increasing available funds, avoiding fossil fuel lock-in by prohibiting 'low-emission' fossil-based investments, and ensuring earlier fund availability through loans.

The document explains the EU's 2030 climate and energy framework, focusing on the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and the Climate Action Regulation (CAR). It details the requirements for Member States to develop National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) and identifies 'loopholes' in the CAR that may delay climate action. The guide recommends that civil society engage in the NECP process to push for the phase-out of free emission allowances, the introduction of carbon floor prices, and the avoidance of flexibility mechanisms that undermine net-zero transitions.

The report analyzes international public opinion on climate change, finding widespread belief that it is happening and a general desire for increased government action, though levels of worry and perceived personal risk vary significantly by country.

The report identifies the residential sector as the largest global source of black carbon (BC), accounting for 48% of emissions in 2017, followed by transportation (24%) and industry. While emissions have declined in North America, Europe, and China due to stricter standards and fuel switching, these gains are being offset by increases in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, where reliance on unclean cooking fuels remains high. The document highlights critical hotspots, including eastern China and the Indo-Gangetic Plain, and notes that global BC reductions are not currently on track to meet the Paris Climate Agreement's 1.5°C warming limit.

The document details the technical approach for calculating and harmonising monthly wind and solar capacity data. It defines 'installed capacity' as the maximum potential output and explains the process for converting solar data between AC and DC values, using a default conversion factor of 1.3. The methodology describes how onshore and offshore wind are distinguished, often relying on IRENA data when primary sources lack a breakdown. It also specifies the publication schedule (twice monthly) and the use of proxies and linear interpolation to estimate missing data for global aggregates and specific countries. Detailed country-specific sections list data sources, publication lags, and specific adjustments for 25 territories, including the US, China, and the EU.

The analysis of 15 draft NECPs reveals a significant increase in wind and solar capacity targets since 2019, bringing the EU closer to REPowerEU goals, though still falling short. While renewable electricity is projected to generate 66-67% of EU electricity by 2030, the report highlights a critical lack of quantified targets for electricity storage and clean flexibility. Furthermore, the document criticises the poor quality and transparency of data provided in the draft plans, which hinders accountability and investment signals.

The document argues that fossil fuels act as weapons of mass destruction, contributing to 86% of CO2 emissions in the last decade. It analyzes the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Mine Ban Treaty, and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons to provide a roadmap for a similar global fossil fuel regime. The brief identifies four pivotal areas for success: building an evidence base through civil society reporting, igniting conversations via city and parliamentarian advocacy, shifting the narrative from defense to humanitarian issues, and convening pioneering countries through regional bans and strategic conferences. It also details treaty elements such as prohibitions, victim assistance obligations, and the role of implementation agencies like the IAEA and OPCW.