Search Climate Insights Directory

The Supreme Court of Pakistan rejected a constitutional challenge by the D.G. Khan Cement Company against a Punjab government notification barring cement plant construction or expansion in "Negative Areas". The court ruled that the ban was a proper climate resilient measure based on a consultant report warning of groundwater depletion and other environmental harms. The decision integrated the precautionary principle, the rights of nature, and the concept of "climate democracy" into the interpretation of fundamental rights under Pakistan's Constitution, emphasizing intergenerational justice and the need to protect water resources from climate change.

The case of Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan centered on the government's failure to implement the National Climate Change Policy of 2012 and the Framework for Implementation of Climate Change Policy (2014-2030). The Lahore High Court ruled in September 2015 that this delay violated citizens' fundamental rights to life and human dignity. To ensure compliance, the court mandated the appointment of climate change point-persons in government ministries and established a Climate Change Commission. By January 2018, a report indicated that 66% of the priority actions from the Framework had been implemented between September 2015 and January 2017. The case is noted for emphasizing climate adaptation rights in the global south.

The Supreme Court of Nepal ordered the government to enact a new climate change law after finding that the Environmental Protection Act of 1997 was inadequate for mitigation and adaptation. The court ruled that inaction violated constitutional rights to a dignified life and a healthy environment, as well as international commitments under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. Following the decision, Nepal passed the Environment Protection Act of 2019 and the Forests Act of 2019.

The report analyzes the IEA's Net Zero Emissions by 2050 (NZE) scenario, highlighting its call for an immediate end to new fossil fuel supply projects and a 75% reduction in methane emissions by 2030. While acknowledging the NZE as a benchmark for 1.5C alignment, the author criticizes its heavy reliance on carbon capture and storage (CCS), carbon dioxide removal (CDR), and biomass, which the report argues could prolong fossil fuel use and cause land-use conflicts. It further notes that the IEA underestimates the cost-competitiveness of renewables and the risks associated with nuclear energy. The document recommends that financial institutions immediately cease support for new fossil fuel and LNG projects and that the IEA adopt a more precautionary approach to unproven technologies.

The report examines how World Bank Development Policy Finance (DPF) in Indonesia and Pakistan has facilitated the expansion of fossil fuels. In Indonesia, a $500 million loan specifically promoted natural gas infrastructure, while the Bank's private sector arm, the IFC, has been linked to coal projects. In Pakistan, the $400 million PACE program's 'prior actions' led to the fast-tracking of an energy plan (IGCEP) that slashed renewable energy targets from 30-33% to 17% and increased reliance on coal, gas, and large-scale hydropower. The authors conclude that DPF often supports fossil fuels by default through sector stabilisation and recommend that all fossil fuels be added to the World Bank's Excluded Expenditures list.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) argues that the USAID Climate Strategy 2022-2030 should expand its scope beyond renewable energy to include advanced clean energy technologies such as carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS), clean hydrogen, and advanced nuclear. CATF contends these are essential for decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors like heavy industry and shipping, and for maintaining grid reliability. The organization also urges USAID to explicitly support the Global Methane Pledge by helping partner countries reduce short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs), specifically in the oil and gas sector, provided such investments do not extend the life of fossil fuel operations. Finally, CATF recommends that USAID better align its climate programming with the broader economic, human development, and COVID-recovery priorities of host countries to ensure long-term sustainability and local ownership.

The author highlights the shared history of underestimating the effects of both climate change and nuclear weapons. The text details how nuclear detonations cause immediate blast damage and long-term atmospheric disruptions, such as 'nuclear winter', which mirror the systemic risks of the climate crisis. It warns that current geopolitical instability, exacerbated by climate-driven resource scarcity, increases the risk of nuclear conflict, particularly in South Asia. The author calls for a revival of public discourse on nuclear risks to match the current momentum for climate action.

The Hindu Kush Himalayas, known as the 'Third Pole', are experiencing rapid glacier retreat due to climate change, leading to an increase in the number and volume of glacial lakes. This has heightened the risk of glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs), which often present transboundary threats, as seen in the 2016 Bhote Koshi River flood where a lake breach in Tibet caused $70 million in damages in Nepal. Despite the high risk, early-warning systems are inadequate and cross-border cooperation remains limited, although initiatives like the Hindu Kush Himalaya Glaciers and Mountain Economy Network and the Koshi Basin Initiative aim to improve regional resilience.

The report finds that new coal capacity in the IRP 2019 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 system increases total discounted power system costs by R23 billion in a reference scenario and up to R109 billion in a climate policy scenario. Furthermore, the study argues that a high-renewable pathway creates more jobs and supports higher GDP growth than a coal-dominated future.

The document outlines a framework for integrating gender equality into climate finance projects, emphasizing the need for local expertise, robust baseline data, and continuity between project design and implementation. It provides specific recommendations for project teams and climate funds, supported by case studies from various sectors and regions.

China's commitment to cease overseas coal financing could remove two-thirds of the pre-construction coal pipeline in Asia, reducing it from over 65 GW to 22 GW. This shift, aligned with similar pledges from Japan, South Korea, and G20 nations, makes the remaining projects unlikely to be completed due to a lack of available capital. The report argues that cancelling these remaining projects would save US$27 billion in capital costs and avoid 103 million tons of annual CO2 emissions.

The analysis reveals that the COVID-19 pandemic has widened the climate finance gap in developing countries, leading to domestic budget reallocations away from climate projects toward health and economic recovery. International climate finance has also decreased, with a higher reliance on loans that increase national debt burdens. The report highlights that climate-finance needs, estimated at $4.6 trillion based on a sample of NDCs, far exceed current flows, and that pandemic-related restrictions have delayed the approval and execution of critical climate projects.

The proposal seeks USD 396,803 to address post-accreditation capacity gaps in the NRSP and update Pakistan's outdated 2017 GCF Country Programme to better align climate investments with current national priorities.

The document assesses the proliferation of gas power plants, pipelines, and LNG terminals across East, South, and Southeast Asia. It contends that these investments, totaling $380 billion, risk becoming stranded assets as renewable energy costs plummet and climate targets necessitate a rapid shift away from fossil fuels. The report highlights the significant carbon budget impact of these projects and the continued role of public finance in supporting gas expansion despite net-zero pledges.

The report analyzes the planned expansion of gas infrastructure in Asia, including power plants, pipelines, and LNG terminals, totaling $379 billion. It argues that this expansion risks locking in high greenhouse gas emissions, potentially consuming a quarter of the global carbon budget for a 1.5°C limit. The document highlights that falling costs of renewable energy and high price volatility of LNG make these gas investments economically risky and likely to become stranded assets. It further criticizes the continued support of public financial institutions for gas projects and advocates for a transition to clean energy portfolios.

The report analyzes plans for US$379 billion in new gas infrastructure across Asia, including 320 GW of power plants and 452 mtpa of LNG import capacity. It argues that this expansion would consume a quarter of the global carbon budget for a 1.5°C limit and warns that these assets may become economically unviable due to the falling cost of renewables and LNG price volatility. The author calls for a redirection of public finance away from gas to align with net-zero goals.

The report argues that the planned $379 billion expansion of gas infrastructure in Asia threatens the global goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C and risks creating stranded assets. It highlights that the region is planning 320 GW of new gas-fired power and 452 mtpa of LNG import capacity, which could emit up to 117 Gt CO2-eq over their lifespans. The document contends that renewable energy is now a more cost-effective and reliable alternative, and calls for the redirection of public finance away from gas to support net-zero goals.

The report identifies a massive planned expansion of gas infrastructure in Asia, including 320 GW of power plants and 452 mtpa of LNG import capacity, valued at 379 billion USD. It argues these investments risk becoming stranded assets as renewable energy costs plummet and climate targets necessitate a rapid decline in fossil fuel use. The document highlights that the projected emissions from this infrastructure could consume 25% of the remaining global carbon budget for 1.5°C. It further criticizes the continued role of public financial institutions in funding these projects, suggesting a shift toward clean energy portfolios as a more secure and sustainable alternative.

The report analyzes the expansion of gas power plants, pipelines, and LNG terminals across East, South, and Southeast Asia, totaling $379 billion in planned investments. It argues that this expansion is incompatible with the 1.5°C climate goal, as the resulting emissions could consume 25% of the global carbon budget. The document highlights the economic risk of these projects becoming stranded assets due to the falling cost of renewable energy and the volatility of LNG prices. It concludes that clean energy portfolios, combining renewables with storage and demand management, are more cost-effective and secure alternatives to gas.

The report identifies a massive planned expansion of gas infrastructure in Asia, totaling US$379 billion, which includes 320 GW of power plants, 63,000 km of pipelines, and 452 mtpa of LNG import capacity. It argues that this expansion would consume approximately one-quarter of the global carbon budget required to limit warming to 1.5°C and warns that these projects are economically risky compared to cheaper renewable alternatives. The document highlights the role of public financing from institutions like the Export-Import Bank of China and the Asian Development Bank in sustaining this growth, while urging a shift toward clean energy portfolios.