Search Climate Insights Directory

The report provides a comprehensive overview of energy transition progress in Brazil, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, and Vietnam. It highlights the role of independent think tanks in driving policy breakthroughs, such as coal phase-outs and renewable energy targets, while identifying systemic barriers including political resistance, grid limitations, and financing gaps. The document argues that while technology strategies (renewables and electrification) are converging, national implementation is shaped by distinct local political and social factors.

The report analyzes the systemic failure of South Africa's public administration due to the unchecked power of political office-bearers over personnel decisions. It proposes a reform model that divides appointment and removal into four stages—process planning, process administration, short-listing, and appointment—to create a functional segregation of duties. For the public service, it suggests empowering the Public Service Commission (PSC) as an independent check. For municipalities, it proposes the creation of independent personnel committees involving professional associations. To overcome political resistance, the author advocates for a 'covering-in' statutory mechanism to implement these reforms incrementally across different organs of state.

The report argues that South Africa's state is in crisis due to systemic corruption and patronage, which are enabled by the unchecked power of politicians over public administrative appointments and procurement. It proposes a 'path to professionalisation' through the creation of independent checks and balances, specifically by dividing appointment processes into stages managed by independent bodies like the Public Service Commission. For criminal justice institutions (NPA, SAPS, DPCI, IPID), it advocates for transparent selection panels to insulate leadership from political interference. Regarding public procurement, the report identifies a crisis of non-compliance and capacity, proposing a single coherent statute, a unified regulatory authority, and the introduction of 'qui tam' mechanisms to incentivise private citizens to report and sue for procurement fraud.

The document argues that climate change creates systemic, transboundary risks to food security that cannot be managed through traditional national strategies like diversification. Using a 'stress test' methodology, it identifies critical vulnerabilities in the trade of maize, rice, wheat, soy, sugar cane, and coffee, highlighting that a few major exporters—such as the US, Brazil, and China—transmit significant risk to global consumers. The authors call for a shift from national adaptation to a cooperative multilateral approach, utilizing frameworks like the Paris Agreement's Global Goal on Adaptation and rethinking climate finance to target systemic resilience in global commodity markets.

The document provides a comprehensive synthesis of the 2018 Global Sustainable Blue Economy Conference's Science and Research Symposium. It argues that a sustainable blue economy—defined as the productive and sustainable use of oceans, seas, lakes, and rivers—must be grounded in multidisciplinary science and public-private partnerships. Key focus areas include the sustainable extraction of deep-sea minerals, the mitigation of climate change through blue carbon ecosystems (mangroves, seagrasses, and seaweed), and the modernization of maritime transport through AI and robotics. The report emphasizes the need for capacity building in the Global South, particularly in Africa, and proposes the establishment of a Global Blue Economy Investment Facility to mobilize finance and technology transfer.

The document serves as an FAQ for an open letter initiative by the We Mean Business Coalition, targeting G20 nations. It outlines the necessity for G20 countries to increase their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to halve global emissions by 2030 and reach net-zero by 2050. The letter calls for specific policy shifts, including an immediate end to new coal projects, the removal of fossil fuel subsidies by 2025, and mandatory climate-related financial disclosures. It emphasizes the G20's unique responsibility given they represent approximately 90% of global GDP and nearly 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

The document is a FAQ for businesses on an open letter to G20 leaders, calling for strengthened Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to halve global emissions by 2030 and reach net-zero by 2050. It outlines key policy demands, including ending coal financing, removing fossil fuel subsidies by 2025, and implementing climate-related financial reporting.

The report details the critical state of primates in the Greater Mekong, where over half of the 44 species are classified as Endangered or Critically Endangered. It identifies habitat loss and the illegal wildlife trade—driven by biomedical research, traditional medicine, and the pet market—as the primary drivers of decline. The document also highlights the ecological importance of primates in seed dispersal and pollination, the risk of zoonotic disease transmission, and various conservation initiatives led by WWF and other NGOs to protect these species through habitat management, rescue centers, and community engagement.

The briefing outlines four priority areas for climate negotiations leading up to COP26: finalizing the Paris Agreement rulebook (specifically common timeframes for NDCs, transparency frameworks, and Article 6 carbon markets), establishing metrics for adaptation and loss and damage, addressing the shortfall in public climate finance for developing nations, and bridging implementation gaps for the 'decade of ambition'. It highlights the role of the 2020 Climate Dialogues in maintaining momentum and warns that a lack of public funding and transparency from developed nations threatens trust and the success of future negotiations.

The document traces the history of international climate governance, highlighting the shift from the 'top-down' Kyoto Protocol to the 'bottom-up' Paris Agreement. It analyzes the central tension between ensuring universal participation and maintaining the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR). While the Paris Agreement achieved universality by allowing self-differentiation through Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), the brief notes that current collective pledges are insufficient to limit warming to 1.5°C or 2°C, and that the regime's success depends on the ambition of major emitters.

The briefing argues that biological weapons remain a viable and rational strategic option for some states due to their low cost, potential for deniability, and asymmetric impact. It challenges the notion that these weapons are tactically useless or too risky to develop, noting that historical precedents and the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate that leaders may prioritize state status or regime survival over the risks of blowback. The authors further contend that bioweapons programs are not always top-down initiatives and that current international norms, specifically the Biological Weapons Convention, lack the enforcement and verification mechanisms necessary to effectively stop such programs.

The Climate Change Performance Index 2021 finds that no country is currently on a path compliant with the Paris Agreement goals. While the EU improved its ranking to 16th place and countries like Sweden, the UK, and Denmark lead, major G20 emitters including the USA, Saudi Arabia, and Russia are rated 'very low'. The report highlights a divide between high-performing smaller nations and developing countries like Morocco, Chile, and India, and the lowest-performing fossil fuel producing nations.

Five years after the Paris Agreement, there has been a significant increase in net-zero commitments from major economies and businesses, though current pledges only limit temperature rise to 2.1ºC. The author argues that green recovery plans provide better economic and employment benefits than traditional stimulus and calls for mandatory climate-related financial disclosures and the removal of fossil fuel subsidies to unlock further private investment.

The UK's decision to increase its 2030 emissions reduction target to at least 68% compared to 1990 levels is framed as a positive signal for business investment and economic growth. The author asserts that a zero-carbon transition is the most effective way to drive job creation and GDP growth during the recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic, outperforming traditional stimulus measures. The text highlights the role of the Science Based Target initiative, with over 1,060 companies committing to Paris Agreement-aligned decarbonization plans, and calls for clear roadmaps incorporating finance and just transition principles to maximize competitiveness.

The document argues that Japan's large-scale biomass power generation, supported by the Feed-in Tariff (FIT) program, is not carbon neutral and causes deforestation and biodiversity loss in exporting regions like North America. It calls for a shift toward small-scale, local biomass systems and the exclusion of projects causing forest degradation from the FIT program.

The document contends that replacing coal with biomass is not a viable climate solution, as solid biomass can emit 3% to 50% more CO2 per unit of energy than coal. It highlights that biomass production drives deforestation and ecosystem loss, particularly in Europe and North America, and releases harmful air pollutants. For financial institutions, the document warns of reputational, financial, and regulatory risks, noting that biomass is more expensive than wind or solar and heavily dependent on subsidies.

The Climate Action Tracker reports that net zero pledges announced by November 2020 could limit global warming to 2.1°C by 2100, though current policies still track 0.8°C higher than this optimistic target. While the Paris Agreement has driven a 0.7°C decrease in real-world emissions projections since 2015, the report emphasizes that governments must strengthen 2030 nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and implementation plans to bridge the remaining gap to 1.5°C.

The report outlines two primary decarbonisation scenarios for India's transport sector: a 'Rail focused' pathway and a 'Road focused' pathway. Both scenarios emphasise that electrification is essential, aiming for nearly 100% electrification of road fleets by 2050. The Rail focused scenario prioritises a massive modal shift toward public transit and rail freight, which significantly reduces the total number of electric vehicles needed. The Road focused scenario assumes continued growth in private vehicle ownership, relying more heavily on rapid electrification and alternative fuels. The analysis identifies four priority action areas: sustainable urban planning to counter urban sprawl, improving non-motorised and public transport, expanding high-quality railway infrastructure, and electrifying all road vehicle fleets. It concludes that achieving these goals will require substantial international financial support and the adoption of global good-practice policies from regions like China, California, and Europe.

The report finds that global power sector investment in 2018 was significantly misaligned with Paris Agreement goals, with 29% of new investment (USD 129 billion) flowing into fossil fuels. No major country or region is decarbonizing its power sector at the required pace, and no major investor category is fully aligned with Paris-aligned emissions intensity targets. The authors highlight a critical data gap, noting that asset-level transaction data was available for only 23% of tracked high-emissions power finance due to corporate balance sheet borrowing. To achieve alignment, the report recommends halting new carbon-intensive investments, accelerating the retirement of fossil-fuel plants, and scaling up low-carbon investments through public-private collaboration and improved climate risk reporting.

The paper introduces a science-based approach to assess the Paris alignment of new investments by comparing the carbon intensity of new assets against thresholds required to meet specific temperature goals, accounting for locked-in emissions from existing assets. Unlike portfolio-based methods that focus on current ownership, this method attributes responsibility to the original finance providers at the time of asset creation. The authors detail the application of this methodology to the global power sector and the U.S. light road vehicle transport sector, utilizing data from the IEA and other technical sources to establish carbon intensity benchmarks and evaluate financial commitments.