Search Climate Insights Directory

The document examines the economic and social impacts of climate change in Africa, specifically focusing on forced displacement. It advocates for the operationalisation of the Loss and Damage Fund to include non-economic losses and provide accessible, non-debt financing for displaced persons, women, youth, and pastoralists.

In Belgium, Green parties in government are addressing a social crisis driven by soaring electricity and gas prices through a three-pronged approach: emergency support for vulnerable households and companies, structural income protections, and investments in the energy transition. Key measures include a 'social rate' price cap for the lowest 20% of the population, a ban on energy disconnections, and the use of windfall taxes on energy companies to fund offshore wind developments and building renovations. The strategy aims to reduce dependence on Russian gas and achieve carbon neutrality while ensuring social justice and the 'power to live with dignity'.

The We Mean Business Coalition's "4 As of Climate Leadership" framework provides a strategic guide for companies to achieve net-zero emissions. It emphasizes setting science-based targets (Ambition), integrating climate goals into core business operations and supply chains (Action), aligning corporate lobbying with climate targets (Advocacy), and maintaining transparent ESG reporting (Accountability).

The report analyzes European coal transitions, finding that while support measures limited poverty, they often failed to secure new employment for workers. Successes were linked to bottom-up project identification combined with top-down financing, investments in transport and education, and environmental restoration. It suggests China can achieve a more successful just transition by proactively planning based on these European experiences.

The document argues that 'net zero' targets are a 'smoke screen' allowing corporations to maintain fossil fuel and industrial agriculture business models. It specifically critiques 'nature-based solutions' (NbS) and carbon offsets as mechanisms that lead to land grabbing, the displacement of Indigenous and peasant communities, and the co-optation of agroecology. The report highlights the technical failures of carbon offsets, the volatility of biological carbon storage compared to fossil carbon, and the risks of 'digital soil carbon' platforms that allow agribusinesses to control farmer data and land use.

The document argues that 'net zero' strategies serve as a 'smoke screen' for large corporations to continue fossil fuel extraction and industrial agriculture. It specifically critiques 'nature-based solutions' and soil carbon sequestration as mechanisms that facilitate land grabbing, data appropriation, and the co-optation of agroecology, ultimately benefiting agribusiness and tech firms while undermining the rights of small-scale producers and Indigenous peoples.

The document argues that 'net zero' targets are deceptive tools used by fossil fuel and agribusiness giants to avoid radical emission cuts. It specifically critiques 'nature-based solutions' (NBS) and soil carbon sequestration as mechanisms that facilitate land grabbing, marginalize small-scale farmers, and prioritize corporate profit over genuine agroecology and food sovereignty.

The document argues that 'net zero' promises act as a 'smoke screen' for multinational corporations to maintain fossil fuel and industrial agriculture growth. It specifically critiques 'nature-based solutions' and soil carbon sequestration as mechanisms that facilitate land grabbing, data extraction from small farmers, and the marginalization of agroecology. The report contends that these market-based approaches prioritize carbon metrics over food sovereignty and ecological justice, calling instead for a transition to agroecological systems and the abandonment of industrial food models.

The document argues that 'net zero' pledges act as a 'smokescreen' for corporations to continue fossil fuel extraction and industrial agriculture. It specifically critiques nature-based solutions (NbS) and soil carbon sequestration, claiming these mechanisms facilitate land grabbing, data harvesting by agribusiness and IT firms, and the co-option of agroecology. The report contends that carbon offsetting relies on a false 'equivalence' between volatile biomass carbon and long-term fossil carbon, ultimately benefiting corporate power over small-scale food producers.

The report argues that 'net zero' targets are a 'smokescreen' allowing corporations to maintain fossil-fuel-based business models through carbon offsetting and 'nature-based solutions'. It contends that these mechanisms lead to land grabbing, the dispossession of Indigenous and peasant communities, and the co-option of agroecology. The document specifically highlights the risks of soil carbon farming as a means for agribusiness and IT companies to harvest farm data and exert control over land use. It concludes that real climate justice requires a transition to food sovereignty and a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels rather than reliance on unverifiable carbon credits.

The document outlines a series of legislative acts and wider trends in the UK that ClientEarth argues undermine the rule of law. It details how new laws like the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill may weaken judicial oversight and strip away environmental safeguards. The report also highlights systemic issues, including the politicisation of the Attorney General, cuts to legal aid, and a trend toward 'government by decree' through the increased use of secondary legislation.

Ember's analysis argues that the UK can reduce gas power generation to 1% by 2030, avoiding £93 billion in costs. This would require adding 90 GW of wind and solar capacity and utilizing green hydrogen and carbon capture and storage (CCS) for system balancing. The report emphasizes that high global gas prices make this transition an economic and security imperative.

The document examines the increasing legal vulnerability of companies regarding plastic leakage into the environment. It highlights significant settlements for plastic pellet spills in the US and Europe, the potential for lawsuits against consumer brands and producers for macroplastic waste, and the role of economic losses—such as those in the fishing and tourism industries—in driving future strategic litigation.

The report identifies subnational pension funds as a significant source of untapped capital for urban climate action, estimating at least USD 9.5 trillion in assets across Brazil, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, the UK, and the US. It details structural barriers such as low risk appetite and limited fund size, as well as external barriers like a lack of bankable project pipelines and ticket size mismatches. To overcome these, the document recommends the use of financial instruments such as blended finance, green bonds, and supply-side aggregation (pooling), while urging funds to make net zero commitments and build internal capacity.

Scotland is pursuing an ambitious goal of net-zero emissions by 2045, supported by a National Just Transition Planning Framework and a permanent Just Transition Commission. While the government aims to transition its workforce from the oil and gas sector—which contributed approximately 5% of GDP in 2019—to green jobs in offshore wind and hydrogen, it has not set a definitive end date for oil and gas exploration. The document highlights tensions between government policy and demands from unions and NGOs for greater state intervention, including the nationalization of energy, and notes the lack of a sovereign wealth fund similar to Norway's to support the transition.

The document examines Scotland's efforts to implement a just transition, particularly within its significant North Sea oil and gas sector. It details the establishment of the Just Transition Commission in 2019 and the subsequent creation of a national Just Transition Planning Framework. While Scotland has ambitious targets—including net zero by 2045—the paper notes contradictions, such as the lack of a planned phase-out for oil and gas exploration. It highlights regional economic challenges in areas like Aberdeenshire and discusses various policy responses, including the Green Jobs Fund and 'green freeports'. The analysis concludes with lessons for Canadian governments on defining just transition, making concrete job commitments, and establishing accountability frameworks.

The document highlights the urgency of loss and damage finance following devastating floods in Bangladesh and Northern India. It argues that existing mechanisms, such as the Green Climate Fund and humanitarian aid, are insufficient due to stringent requirements, slow disbursement, and overstretched resources. The author calls on G7 nations to provide bilateral grants, support existing pilot facilities, or fund national disaster funds to provide immediate relief while working toward a formal loss and damage finance facility at COP27.

The policy brief advocates for the development of floating offshore wind on the U.S. West Coast to meet net-zero emissions goals, noting that it can provide reliable power during peak early evening demand and reduce land-use conflicts. It highlights the economic potential for job creation and port revitalization, specifically citing the Port of Humboldt Bay. The authors call for long-term federal tax credits, port infrastructure investment, proactive transmission planning, and accelerated siting to overcome current lacks in ambition compared to the East Coast.

The document examines the dimensions of a just energy transition, moving beyond the focus on fossil fuel workers to address the impacts of clean energy deployment. It identifies five types of energy justice—distributive, procedural, recognition, restorative, and cosmopolitan—and emphasizes the necessity of respecting human rights across the entire clean energy supply chain. The briefing highlights risks associated with critical mineral extraction and land use, providing case studies from Colombia and Scandinavia. It concludes that international cooperation and robust regulatory frameworks are essential to ensure that the benefits and costs of the transition are shared equitably without exacerbating existing inequalities.

The paper examines the dimensions of a just and equitable energy transition, moving beyond the impacts on fossil fuel-dependent workers to analyze the risks associated with clean energy supply chains. It identifies five forms of justice—distributional, procedural, recognition, restorative, and cosmopolitan—and emphasizes the necessity of respecting human rights, particularly for Indigenous peoples, throughout the energy lifecycle. The authors highlight the risks of human rights violations in critical mineral extraction and the potential for 'green' projects to cause displacement. They advocate for community benefit-sharing, quality job creation, and international cooperation to ensure that the economic benefits of the transition do not exacerbate existing inequalities.