Search Climate Insights Directory

The document examines the tension between the 'green growth' agenda promoted by developed nations and Brazil's preference for 'sustainable development' and autonomous industrialisation. It argues that while Brazil possesses significant environmental assets, its domestic policies—including those of the BNDES and Petrobras—continue to prioritise short-term economic growth and fossil fuel consumption over a green transition. Internationally, Brazil aligns with BRICS and other emerging economies to resist binding emissions commitments and protectionist 'green' trade barriers, despite its own voluntary GHG reduction targets.

The paper examines 27 PPCFIs with approximately US$41.3 billion in capitalization, finding a strong bias toward mitigation over adaptation and a preference for established markets over least-developed countries. It identifies significant hurdles in attracting private capital at the fund level, noting that only two of eleven funds aiming for private capital achieved sizeable investment. The authors recommend standardizing processes, increasing private sector awareness, and leveraging the Green Climate Fund to coordinate the fragmented landscape of climate finance.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) warns that TTIP may hinder public health and safety goals by promoting regulatory harmonization and mutual recognition that could lower chemical safety standards. The document highlights the divergence between the EU's hazard-based REACH approach and the US's risk-based TSCA approach, arguing that trade-driven 'regulatory coherence' often results in a 'lowest-common denominator' outcome. It further cautions against investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, which could allow corporations to sue governments over environmental laws, and warns that TTIP could preempt protective sub-national regulations in the US and EU. Finally, it suggests that a US-EU agreement could negatively influence the development of chemical regulations in other regions, such as the BRIICS countries.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), on behalf of several environmental organizations, warns the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance that TTIP may prioritize trade interests over public health. The document highlights the divergence between the EU's hazard-based REACH regulation and the U.S.'s risk-based Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), arguing that harmonization or mutual recognition could lead to a 'lowest-common denominator' approach to chemical safety. It specifically opposes investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, which it claims allow corporations to sue governments over public interest laws, and warns that TTIP could preempt protective sub-federal laws in the U.S. and national laws in EU member states. Finally, it suggests that a restrictive TTIP could discourage other nations, particularly BRIICS countries, from adopting more stringent chemical safety standards.

The report argues that the current U.S. agricultural landscape is dominated by corn and soybeans due to federal subsidies, which contradicts national nutritional goals. Using economic modeling, the authors find that aligning production with healthy dietary guidelines would significantly increase fruit and vegetable acreage while reducing cereal grain production. Such a transition would likely improve public health, reduce environmental degradation from monocropping and livestock operations, and create new economic opportunities for farmers, particularly in the Midwest.

The initiative focuses on the arid Americas, specifically addressing water scarcity driven by climate change and human demands. It emphasizes the strategic importance of groundwater and the need for shared methodologies to assess aquifer depletion and agricultural water use, which accounts for 70% to 90% of water consumption in the region.

The policy brief highlights that mangroves are among the world's most threatened vegetation types, with over 20% lost in the last 30 years. It emphasizes that in Africa, mangroves often overlap with fossil fuel deposits and infrastructure projects, leading to degradation. The author advocates for the use of ecosystem valuations, integrated coastal zone management, and the inclusion of local communities in decision-making to reconcile economic growth with biodiversity conservation. Proposed interventions include the adoption of 'no net loss' policies, the use of Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs), and the implementation of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) and Blue Carbon trading to provide financial incentives for conservation.

The document assesses the impact of international GHG offsets on global emission-reduction pledges, warning that double-counting reductions could significantly dilute climate ambition.

The report posits that national climate change legislation acts as an enabler for international agreements by building government confidence, knowledge, and a desire for competitive parity. Using examples like South Korea, Mexico, and the UK, the authors suggest that domestic targets inform a country's international position and create the political space necessary for a global deal.

The report examines the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency adopted in July 2013, which shift the presumption in investor-State arbitration from privacy to openness. It details the rules' application—default for treaties concluded after April 1, 2014, and 'opt-in' for earlier treaties—and outlines mandatory disclosures of notices, documents, and hearings. The document also discusses the role of the UN Secretary-General as the information repository and suggests next steps, including the development of a transparency convention to facilitate broader adoption.

The document warns that TTIP may prioritize trade interests over public health by promoting regulatory harmonization and mutual recognition that could lower chemical safety standards in the U.S. and EU. It specifically contrasts the EU's hazard-based REACH regulation with the U.S.'s risk-based TSCA approach, arguing that mutual recognition would effectively erase protections for chemicals restricted in only one jurisdiction. The author also cautions against investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, which could allow corporations to sue governments over public interest laws, and warns that TTIP could preempt protective sub-federal or sub-regional laws. Finally, the statement suggests that a low-standard TTIP could chill the development of stringent chemical regulations in other regions, such as the BRIICS countries.

The document warns that TTIP may prioritize trade over public health by promoting regulatory harmonization and mutual recognition that could weaken chemical safety standards. It highlights the divergence between the EU's hazard-based REACH approach and the US's risk-based TSCA approach, arguing that mutual recognition would effectively erase protections unique to one jurisdiction. The author also cautions against investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) and the preemption of sub-national laws, while noting that TTIP could negatively influence chemical regulations in non-member countries like the BRIICS nations.

The author contends that the TTIP agreement will harm countries in the Global South, specifically citing risks to Mexico's clothing industry and citrus exports from South Africa, Egypt, and Morocco. The text argues that the primary goal of TTIP is for the EU and USA to establish global standards and maintain economic dominance, potentially forcing other nations to accept unfavorable terms or splitting the world into competing trade blocs. This process is viewed as a move away from the transparent, multilateral trade order established after World War II.

The author contends that the TTIP will harm the Global South through the diversion of trade flows and the imposition of EU-US standards on other nations. Mexico is highlighted as particularly vulnerable, specifically in its garment industry. The text suggests the agreement is a strategic attempt by the US and EU to bolster their diminishing economic influence and sideline the BRICS nations, potentially undermining the multilateral trading system in favor of a non-transparent, power-driven trade regime.

The Basque Country exhibits a high resource dependency, with a Total Material Requirement of 108 tons per capita in 2004, 83% of which is imported. This consumption pattern drives significant environmental and social degradation abroad, including oil spills in Nigeria, deforestation for palm oil in Indonesia, toxic pollution from nickel mining in Russia, and watershed degradation from tin mining in Bolivia. The document argues that the economic prosperity of developed regions is linked to an unsustainable use of global resources and calls for a transformation in consumption and production patterns to meet basic human needs without exceeding planetary limits.

The document argues that strong national climate legislation acts as an enabler for more ambitious international agreements by increasing competitiveness, confidence, and knowledge. It highlights that domestic laws can provide the 'legal force' required for future UNFCCC outcomes and recommends strengthening the role of legislators through capacity building and better engagement with executive negotiators.

The document explores the use of peer review as a 'soft law' tool to improve transparency, accountability, and mutual learning among G-20 nations regarding fossil-fuel subsidy reform (FFSR). It analyzes existing peer-review models from the OECD, APEC, and WTO, proposing three potential structures for the G-20: country-only, third-party, or hybrid reviews. The author argues that the G-20's relative informality and homogeneity make it a suitable forum for such a mechanism, provided a balance is struck between external accountability and internal trust.

The author highlights a divergence in trade policy between South Africa, which prioritizes the WTO's multilateral system, and the US, which is pursuing far-reaching 'megaregional' agreements like the Trans Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. This shift poses risks to South African exporters, particularly in the automotive sector, as the US creates reciprocal trade arrangements with other nations. The document suggests that as Agoa faces renewal in 2015, South Africa should move beyond unilateral arrangements toward a more strategic, reciprocal trade relationship with the US.

The document is a participant list for the 21st Conference of the Parts, held June 12-13, 2013, in Montevideo, Uruguay. It details representatives from various countries, including Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and the USA, as well as observers and staff from the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI) and the Ministry of Housing, Territorial Planning and Environment (MVOTMA/DINAMA).

The report argues that traditional conservation policies relying on regulation and financial incentives are often insufficient because they ignore the psychological and social drivers of human behavior. It proposes a 'soft policy' approach using 'nudges'—small changes in the decision-making context—to encourage voluntary pro-environmental actions. The authors identify five primary 'areas of influence' for behavior change: attitudes, personal agency, emotions, social norms, and the environmental/decision context. To improve conservation outcomes, the report recommends that practitioners explicitly use social science evidence, track social indicators alongside ecological ones, and employ experimental or quasi-experimental designs to identify causal relationships between interventions and behavioral changes.