Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that Eskom is facing a liquidity and financial crisis driven by stagnant electricity demand and the high costs of its coal-fired power construction programme. Through system-level modelling and station-specific analysis, the study finds that the levelised costs of operating older coal stations (Arnot, Camden, Grootvlei, Hendrina, and Komati) exceed their system alternative value, meaning they can be replaced by cheaper alternatives without compromising security of supply. Specifically, decommissioning Grootvlei, Hendrina, and Komati early could save Eskom R12.5bn in present value terms. Additionally, the report finds that cancelling Kusile units 5 and 6 is economically viable if capital cost savings exceed a threshold of approximately R4.7bn. The authors conclude that South Africa no longer requires new nuclear, coal, or gas procurement, as solar PV and wind have become the most competitive new-build options.

The report finds that 16 of the 25 major emitting countries and regions analysed are not on track to meet their self-determined NDC targets. While some countries like Brazil, China, and India are likely to achieve their targets with current policies, others, including the US, EU, and Canada, require additional measures. Furthermore, current policies are projected to fail to prevent emissions from increasing up to 2030 relative to 2010 levels in both developing and OECD nations, with only Japan and the EU projected to see further decreases.

The report analyzes data from 174 organizations and programs to identify gaps and challenges in integrating gender diversity and social inclusion into sustainable energy. It finds that marginalized groups lack decision-making power and that initiatives face significant hurdles, including funding shortages and low awareness of the need for inclusive energy service design.

The document critiques the European Commission's proposal for a Multilateral Investment Court, asserting that it merely rebrands the controversial investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system without addressing its substantive flaws. It argues that ISDS allows corporations to challenge public interest laws—including those related to health, environment, and human rights—through biased tribunals, often resulting in massive taxpayer-funded payouts. The report claims the proposed court would further institutionalize this imbalance, undermine national judiciaries, and create a parallel legal system accessible only to foreign investors. It concludes by advocating for the termination of bilateral investment treaties and the adoption of a UN treaty to regulate transnational corporations.

The report examines the discrepancy between the frequent WTO litigation of renewable energy subsidies and the absence of cases against fossil fuel subsidies. It argues that while political factors and the 'undercapture' of consumer subsidies by WTO law play a role, producer subsidies may still be actionable if sufficient evidence of adverse trade effects is provided. Through five G20 case studies, the authors highlight the difficulty of proving 'adverse effects' and the lack of transparency in subsidy notifications. The report recommends five avenues for reform: technical assistance, enhanced transparency, subsidy reform pledges, political declarations, and expanding the category of prohibited subsidies.

The paper analyzes the UN's efforts to create global frameworks for migration and refugee management via the Global Compact for Migration (GCM) and the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR). It highlights that while the GCR benefits from established international law and the leadership of the UNHCR, the GCM is a more politicized, state-led process lacking a foundational legal base. The author expresses concern over the minimal participation of African states and the African Union in the GCM process, arguing that this lack of engagement may lead to a framework that favors Global North interests, such as border security and return policies, over the socio-economic needs and mobility of African citizens.

The report finds that 'green finance' aligned with forest and climate goals is severely insufficient, totaling roughly USD 20 billion since 2010, and is dwarfed by 'grey finance'—investments in agricultural drivers of deforestation—which amounts to USD 777 billion. While results-based REDD+ payments have mobilized over USD 4.1 billion, disbursements remain limited. The authors argue that achieving zero deforestation by 2030 requires a dramatic shift of existing financial flows away from deforestation drivers toward sustainable land use and the strengthening of private sector ESG policies.

This briefing by the Environmental and Energy Study Institute argues that the United States must proactively plan for climate-induced migration to avoid regional instability and humanitarian crises. It highlights the lack of legal protections for environmental migrants and the specific risks of agricultural decline in Mexico and Central and South America, while noting the potential strain on U.S. military resources tasked with humanitarian aid.

The briefing examines why fossil fuel subsidies have historically avoided challenges at the WTO, noting that WTO law often "undercaptures" these measures compared to renewable energy supports. Through a preliminary analysis of five G20 support measures, the authors find that consumption subsidies are particularly difficult to litigate due to a lack of specificity and difficulty in demonstrating adverse trade effects. To overcome these legal hurdles, the document proposes five reform avenues: technical assistance, improved transparency, political declarations, voluntary pledges with reporting, and the expansion of the ASCM's category of prohibited subsidies.

The document highlights the inadequacy of current refugee definitions for environmental migrants, who lack legal protections under the 1951 Refugee Convention. It warns that climate change could displace tens of millions, with the U.S. likely seeing a significant influx from Central and South America, including an estimated 6.7 million people from Mexico by 2080 due to agricultural declines. The brief emphasizes the need for the U.S. to support resiliency initiatives abroad and expand its humanitarian aid capacity, noting that the U.S. military is already a primary provider of such assistance.

This report by Friends of the Earth International documents systemic human rights and environmental violations by transnational corporations (TNCs) across eight Latin American and Caribbean countries. It highlights cases of corporate impunity, the use of investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms to challenge public health and environmental policies, and the violent suppression of territory defenders. The document advocates for a legally binding international treaty to hold TNCs accountable and the creation of an International Tribunal on Human Rights and Transnational Corporations.

This report by Friends of the Earth International documents systemic human rights and environmental violations by transnational corporations across eight Latin American and Caribbean countries. It argues that a 'architecture of impunity'—composed of free trade agreements, investment protection treaties, and the ICSID arbitration system—shields corporations from accountability while allowing them to challenge public health and environmental policies. The report advocates for a legally binding UN treaty on transnational corporations and human rights, including the creation of an International Court to ensure justice for affected communities.

The report examines the synergies between Community Forest Management (CFM) and agroecology, positioning them as essential tools for food sovereignty and biodiversity conservation. It critiques the 'green economy' and market-based conservation models like REDD+, arguing that they erode traditional values and community autonomy. The document specifically challenges the FAO's definition of forests for including monoculture plantations, which it claims facilitates deforestation and undermines the livelihoods of the 1.6 billion people dependent on forests. It advocates for the recognition of territorial control, women's autonomy, and traditional knowledge as the primary drivers of effective forest protection.

The report argues that Community Forest Management (MCB) and agroecology are complementary political and technical practices that protect biodiversity and ensure food sovereignty. It critiques top-down conservation models like REDD+ and the FAO's narrow definition of forests, which the author claims facilitate industrial monocultures and the displacement of local communities. The document highlights the role of traditional knowledge, women's autonomy, and local markets in maintaining ecosystem health, providing evidence from the Amazon, Southeast Asia, Africa, and Europe.

The report argues that community forest management (CFM) and agroecology are complementary systems based on shared principles of territorial control, traditional knowledge, and gender autonomy. It contends that these community-led approaches are more effective at preserving biodiversity and ensuring food security than top-down 'green economy' solutions, such as REDD+ or industrial monoculture plantations. The document specifically critiques the FAO's definition of forests for excluding social and cultural dimensions, which it argues facilitates deforestation and the displacement of local populations. It advocates for the recognition of collective land rights and the promotion of local markets to support sustainable, non-anthropocentric relationships with nature.

The report details various cases in Latin America where transnational corporations in mining, energy, agribusiness, and tobacco have violated human rights and caused environmental destruction. It highlights the 'architecture of impunity' created by bilateral investment treaties and the ICSID arbitration system, which allow companies to sue states over public interest policies. The document advocates for a binding international treaty and an independent international tribunal to ensure corporate accountability and the supremacy of human rights over commercial interests.

The report details cases of corporate abuse in Latin America, including mining disasters in Brazil, the assassination of environmental defenders in Mexico and Honduras, and legal battles over public health and water in Uruguay and Argentina. It argues that current international investment frameworks, such as the ICSID, protect corporate profits over human rights and national sovereignty. The authors call for a binding UN treaty to end corporate impunity and the establishment of an international tribunal to hold transnational companies accountable for environmental and social crimes.

The report finds that total 'green finance' for forest emissions reduction (roughly USD 20 billion since 2010) is insufficient and vastly outweighed by 'grey finance'—investments and subsidies that potentially drive deforestation—which totals USD 777 billion. While there is growth in impact investment and results-based REDD+ payments, the report argues that a dramatic shift away from traditional investments in deforestation drivers is required to achieve zero deforestation.

The research simulates the economic effects of a 20 per cent tariff hike and a border carbon tax across North American industries. It finds that while the U.S. would face the largest absolute GDP and welfare losses, Canada would experience the highest relative decline in employment. Crucially, the study concludes that trade barriers are ineffective for reducing carbon-intensive energy output or greenhouse gas emissions and may actually reduce renewable energy use in favor of liquefied natural gas.

The document denounces the neoliberal capitalist system and the 'destructive practices' of transnational corporations as drivers of climate injustice and disaster severity in the Global South. It specifically highlights the impact of Hurricane Irma and earthquakes in Mexico, arguing that the most vulnerable are disproportionately affected. The statement rejects 'false solutions' such as the financialization of nature and REDD, instead advocating for 'people’s solutions' including food sovereignty, agroecology, and energy sovereignty to preserve life and manage the commons.