Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that to meet the 1.5°C climate goal, new coal infrastructure must stop immediately and most existing plants must be retired by 2030. It provides a framework for financial institutions to assess corporate coal exit plans, emphasizing that credible plans must include facility-by-facility closure dates, a prohibition on selling assets to new owners, and a ban on converting plants to other fossil fuels or biomass. The briefing also highlights the necessity of funded just transition plans and the cessation of anti-climate lobbying and legal challenges via investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms.

The document argues that to limit global warming to 1.5°C, all coal assets must be closed by 2030 in OECD and European countries and by 2040 globally. It outlines a comprehensive framework for financial institutions to phase out coal support, combining immediate exclusion criteria for new projects and high-exposure companies with a structured engagement process for remaining portfolio companies to ensure the actual closure, rather than the sale, of coal assets.

The document highlights the Montreal Protocol as a successful model of multilateralism where science, diplomacy, and the private sector collaborated to phase out ozone-depleting substances (ODS). It details how the Protocol and its amendments, including the Kigali Amendment, have prevented millions of skin cancer cases and cataracts while providing significant climate co-benefits by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The brief emphasizes the importance of differentiated responsibilities for developing countries and the role of political will and industry cooperation in achieving global environmental goals.

The Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) addresses the lack of consistency and ambition in transition finance by introducing a certification framework for corporate transitions. The proposal argues that for a company's transition to be credible, it must meet five criteria: alignment with the Paris Agreement, a robust plan, tangible action, internal oversight, and external reporting. The document suggests a three-tier labeling system (Green, Green Transition, and Transition Transition) and outlines a two-step assessment method for complex companies to ensure their overall performance aligns with global net-zero goals by 2050.

The Climate Bonds Initiative proposes a certification framework to ensure corporate transitions are aligned with the Paris Agreement. The framework focuses on five hallmarks: Paris-aligned goals, robust plans, implementation action, internal monitoring, and external reporting. It distinguishes between 'Green Transition' (already aligned) and 'Interim Transition' (catching up) to provide clarity for investors and prevent greenwashing in the growing market of Sustainability-Linked Bonds (SLBs) and transition bonds.

The Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) outlines a proposal to certify 'credible' corporate transitions by requiring companies to meet five specific attributes: Paris-aligned goals, robust plans, implementation action, internal monitoring, and external reporting. This framework aims to bridge the gap between high-level market guidance and complex corporate assessment frameworks, providing a standardized, science-based approach to evaluate whether a company's transition is sufficiently ambitious and robust to align with global net-zero goals by 2050.

The Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) proposes a certification framework to ensure company decarbonisation is rapid and robust enough to align with the Paris Agreement. The proposal introduces five 'hallmarks' of a credibly transitioning company: Paris-aligned targets, robust plans, implementation action, internal monitoring, and external reporting. This framework aims to bridge the gap between light-touch market guidance and overly complex entity-level assessments. CBI suggests differentiating between 'Green Transition' (already aligned with sectoral pathways) and 'Interim Transition' (catching up, with a proposed grace period until 2025). The framework emphasizes absolute measures tied to common sectoral transition pathways over relative 'best-in-class' benchmarking and requires the inclusion of scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions.

The Russian coal sector provides a low economic contribution to the national GDP but maintains high social and political significance, particularly in regions like Kuzbass. Despite this, the sector is heavily reliant on indirect state subsidies and faces a deteriorating infrastructure, with the average age of coal power plants reaching 53 years. The report highlights a disconnect between the Russian government's expectations of export growth and the reality of decarbonization trends in key markets such as the EU, China, and India. It argues that Russia lacks an official decarbonization scenario and that conservative views currently dominate policy, ignoring the risks of stranded assets and the impact of the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). The authors propose a 'just transition' framework consisting of social programs for workers, regional economic diversification, and the introduction of an internal carbon price.

The Russian coal sector provides a negligible contribution to the national GDP but remains politically significant due to regional employment and historical stability concerns. While the Russian government continues to anticipate growth in coal exports, particularly to Asia, the report argues that this is unrealistic given the global low-carbon transition, the obsolescence of Russia's coal-fired power fleet, and the increasing competitiveness of renewable energy. The document highlights that the sector is heavily reliant on indirect government subsidies, such as reduced rail tariffs. It proposes a three-part just transition framework consisting of social re-employment programmes, regional economic diversification (especially in the Kuzbass region), and the implementation of a domestic carbon price to internalize environmental costs.

The document analyzes coal finance in 18 high-impact countries (HICs) with significant electricity access gaps. It finds that while global coal investment is declining, finance persists in HICs, largely driven by Chinese state-owned institutions and a few South Asian nations. The report argues that coal is misaligned with Sustainable Development Goal 7 (SDG7) due to long development timelines and high infrastructure costs, contrasting this with the efficiency of distributed renewable energy. It highlights the risk of stranded assets in Bangladesh and Pakistan and the operational hurdles facing coal in Africa, concluding that a shift toward renewables and finance-based carbon accounting is necessary to achieve net-zero goals.

A September 2021 survey of 898 registered U.S. voters shows broad support for international climate action. A majority of voters believe the U.S. should reduce greenhouse gas emissions regardless of other countries' actions (66%) and support the government's pledge to reduce carbon pollution by 50% by 2030 (73%). There is also significant support for pressuring other nations to reduce pollution (78%) and providing financial and technical aid to developing countries for both mitigation (66%) and adaptation (61%). While there is cross-partisan agreement that developing and other industrialized nations should do more to address global warming, support for U.S.-led action varies significantly by political ideology, with the lowest support found among conservative Republicans.

The September 2021 Global Update by the Climate Action Tracker (CAT) finds that global climate action continues to lag behind the requirements for limiting warming to 1.5°C. While some countries have updated their NDCs, the 2030 emissions gap remains significant, estimated at 20 to 23 GtCO2e. The report introduces a new rating system that integrates targets, policies, and climate finance, revealing that only The Gambia is overall 1.5°C Paris Agreement compatible. Most net zero targets are rated as poor or incomplete, and developed countries are failing to provide sufficient international climate finance or implement policies that align with their fair share of global mitigation efforts.

The Climate Action Tracker (CAT) 2021 rating methodology employs a dual-framework approach, combining 'fair share' principles and 'modelled domestic pathways' to assess government climate action. It evaluates targets (domestic and international), implemented policies, and climate finance to determine an overall rating. The system distinguishes between developed countries, which are expected to provide finance and meet stringent domestic targets, and developing countries, which may require international support to achieve full decarbonisation. The methodology specifically excludes land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) from main ratings but flags them when they significantly impact a country's emissions profile.

The document analyzes coal finance in 18 high-impact countries (HICs) in South Asia and Africa, highlighting that while global trends shift toward renewables, significant coal investment persists, largely driven by Chinese state-owned institutions. It argues that coal is an inefficient path to universal electricity access compared to distributed renewables and warns of stranded asset risks, citing overcapacity in Bangladesh and Pakistan.

The report identifies critical transboundary climate risks in global agricultural trade, noting that a few major exporters like the US, Brazil, and China disproportionately transmit risk to dependent importers. It argues that traditional risk management, such as diversification, is insufficient against systemic climate shifts and calls for multilateral cooperation and system-level adaptation finance.

The G20, responsible for 75% of global GHG emissions, currently has commitments that put the world on a trajectory for 2.4°C of warming. While announced but non-formalized pledges could lower this to 2.1°C, only a comprehensive shift where all G20 members align with 1.5°C pathways and mid-century net zero targets could limit warming to 1.7°C. The report identifies a 23 GtCO2e emissions gap for 2030 and warns that many net zero pledges are unrealistic without significantly stronger near-term (2030) targets. Achieving the 1.5°C goal will require G20 leadership, action from non-G20 countries, and the fulfillment of climate finance commitments to developing nations.

The paper surveys 29 long-term climate strategies (LTSs) submitted to the UNFCCC, representing 42 countries and 28% of global emissions. It finds a growing trend toward net-zero targets, an increasing focus on the fundamental economic and societal shifts required for transition, and a reliance on both natural and technological carbon removals. The analysis highlights that while most strategies include midcentury goals and modeling, the level of detail regarding adaptation and just transition varies, and some parties acknowledge gaps between their most ambitious scenarios and their final targets.

The report finds that current G20 commitments put the world on a trajectory for 2.4°C of warming by 2100. While announced but non-formalised pledges could lower this to 2.1°C, only an 'enhanced ambition' scenario—where all G20 members align 2030 targets with 1.5°C pathways and commit to mid-century net zero—could limit warming to 1.7°C. The authors argue that G20 countries, accounting for 75% of global emissions, are uniquely positioned to close three-quarters of the temperature gap, provided they accelerate near-term action and developed nations ramp up financial support to developing countries.

The study finds that new coal generation is unnecessary for energy security, more expensive than renewable alternatives, and incompatible with the Paris Agreement. Modelling shows that forcing 1.5 GW of new coal into the power system increases total discounted costs by R23 billion in a reference scenario and R109 billion in a climate policy scenario, while reducing GDP and employment.

The author advocates for a permanent U.S. strategy of vaccine diplomacy, combining ambitious targets for rapid vaccine development and manufacturing with the diplomatic infrastructure needed for global distribution. The text suggests that maintaining 'warm' infrastructure through annual exercises and supporting organizations like Gavi can prevent future outbreaks from reaching pandemic scale and protect U.S. interests by limiting the emergence of dangerous mutations.