Search Climate Insights Directory

The text calls for rigorous, responsibility-driven journalism and better scientific communication to address the global challenge of climate change, warning against alarmism and the influence of financial lobbies.

The Paris Agreement establishes a global commitment to limit warming to well below 2°C, pursuing efforts for 1.5°C, and introduces a five-year ambition ratcheting mechanism. It creates a new mitigation mechanism that moves beyond pure offsetting and includes human rights protections in its preamble. While it acknowledges international aviation and shipping emissions, these remain outside national targets. The agreement necessitates an update to the EU's 2030 climate target to align with the 1.5°C goal.

The statement criticizes the Paris Agreement for abandoning people and the planet, citing a lack of political ambition and the undue influence of corporate lobbyists. It contrasts this political failure with the rise of a global movement of indigenous peoples, youth, and activists who demand climate justice, agroecology, and community-managed forests over 'false solutions' and corporate greenwashing.

The statement asserts that the Paris climate negotiations were a failure of political leadership, characterized by a lack of ambition and the undue influence of polluting corporations. It highlights the rise of a global movement demanding climate justice, food sovereignty through agroecology, and community-led forest management, contrasting these grassroots efforts with 'false solutions' and cynical deforestation offsets promoted within the UN framework.

Carbon Market Watch criticizes a proposed 'mechanism to support sustainable development' in the Paris climate treaty negotiations, asserting that it allows developed countries to generate and use carbon offsets without restriction. The organization warns that including land use carbon offsets for non-permanent sequestration would create a 'gigatonne loophole' and undermine climate targets. Additionally, the statement notes the removal of a proposed financial levy on carbon prices and highlights a counter-proposal from an alliance of developing countries (LMDC, Arab Group, and ALBA Group) to remove the offsetting mechanism in favor of cooperative approaches for mitigation and adaptation.

CIEL President Carroll Muffett critiques Secretary Kerry's COP 21 speech, stating that the US pledge to double grant-based adaptation assistance to over $800 million by 2020 is insufficient compared to the $100 billion annual pledge by developed countries. Muffett argues that US domestic politics have hindered ambitious international climate engagement and rejects the notion that the Paris outcomes are merely a "preamble," emphasizing the urgent human rights tragedies already caused by climate change.

Carbon Market Watch expresses concern over the potential for continued offset credit trading in the L.6 text, arguing that offsets reduce the ambition of emissions caps and hinder the goal of limiting temperature increases to 1.5ºC. The author suggests that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) structures should be repurposed as a channel for climate finance rather than an offset mechanism to support mitigation outcomes and avoid double counting.

The author contends that international aviation and shipping, which together account for approximately 5% of global CO2 emissions, are being overlooked in Paris negotiations despite projected emission growth of up to 270% by 2050. The text criticizes the removal of references to the '2C objective' and levy schemes for the Adaptation Fund from draft texts and calls for the ICAO and IMO to provide transparent annual emissions data.

The report examines design elements for mitigation commitments in the 2015 global climate agreement, focusing on participation, commitment types, ambition guidance, and transparency to ensure effective and equitable national targets.

The briefing advocates for the Paris agreement to establish a global goal for adaptation to strengthen international cooperation and resilience. It proposes an 'adaptation cycle' consisting of regular national adaptation communications and a global stock-take every five years to identify gaps and mobilize support. The author emphasizes that this process should minimize the burden on developing countries by utilizing existing planning frameworks like National Adaptation Plans.

The We Mean Business Coalition argues that current Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) from over 180 countries are insufficient, potentially leading to 2.7°C of warming. To bridge this gap, the author proposes a formal mechanism within the Paris Agreement—specifically referencing Articles 3 and 10—that requires countries to communicate and strengthen their climate commitments every five years starting from 2020. The document warns that a failure to update policy environments every five years will cause government progress to lag behind businesses and investors, increasing risks for the private sector.

The document examines the relationship between NAMAs and INDCs, noting that over a third of developing countries link the two in their submissions. It aims to analyze how these specific actions and broader targets interact across key implementation areas including finance, MRV, and sustainable development.

A survey of 1,330 American adults conducted in 2015 shows strong public support for an international climate agreement in Paris, with 71% stating such an agreement is important. A majority of respondents (64%) believe the U.S. should do more to address global warming, and 62% argue the U.S. should reduce emissions regardless of the actions of other countries. Furthermore, majorities believe both developing countries (72%) and other industrialized nations (66%) should increase their efforts to combat climate change.

A 2015 survey of 1,330 American adults shows strong public support for reaching an international climate agreement in Paris, with 71% stating it is important. A majority of respondents (64%) believe the U.S. should do more to address global warming, and 62% argue the U.S. should reduce emissions regardless of the actions of other countries.

The guide outlines three primary strategies for business engagement during COP21: educating leaders on climate science and policy, making public climate commitments through platforms like the Lima-Paris Action Agenda and the We Mean Business 'Take Action' campaign, and participating in onsite networking and events in Paris. It highlights specific tools for tracking commitments, such as NAZCA, and lists various side events and hubs, including the 'Open to Business' hub, designed to facilitate business-led climate action.

WRI Climate Director Jennifer Morgan frames COP21 as a transformational moment to shift the world toward a sustainable economic model. While noting that over 160 countries have submitted climate action plans (INDCs) and major economies are increasing renewable energy supply, the document warns that current efforts are insufficient to meet the 2 degree C limit. It proposes three essential components for the Paris agreement: clear long-term and short-term signals to catalyze investment and decarbonization, a solidarity package providing finance and tools to developing countries, and a global system of transparency and accountability.

Friends of the Earth International argues that failing to stop catastrophic climate change will exacerbate poverty, hunger, and conflict, making just climate action a critical peace-building tool. The organization criticizes the French government's state of emergency for restricting civil liberties and cancelling climate justice mobilizations ahead of the December 2015 UN climate negotiations, while asserting that democratic decision-making must be reclaimed from corporate influence.

The document is a call to action by cleantech entrepreneurs and supporting organisations directed at COP21. It argues that viable solutions for decarbonisation already exist but are hindered by policy influence and capital allocation favouring the fossil fuel industry. The signatories demand a global shift to 100% renewable energy by 2050, the redirection of finance away from fossil fuels, and the implementation of science-based targets and carbon pricing.

Earthjustice condemns the U.S. Senate's vote on S.J. Res. 24, which sought to repeal the Clean Power Plan, describing the plan as the most significant U.S. action on climate change to date. The organization notes that the President intended to veto the resolution and highlights the contrast between the Senate's action and the efforts of world leaders to address climate change in Paris.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) stated on November 17, 2015, that it would proceed with its expert team's support for a climate agreement in Paris. President and CEO Dr. Andrew Steer emphasized that the organization refuses to let fear prevail and views the summit as an opportunity to show solidarity with France and demonstrate the global community's ability to find common solutions. The WRI aims for an agreement that protects the planet, increases global prosperity, and enhances safety for vulnerable communities.