Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that offshore oil and gas activities pose severe threats to the global commons, specifically the oceans and atmosphere. It details how seismic surveys harm marine life, production leads to catastrophic blowouts and underreported methane emissions, transportation increases the risk of spills and invasive species, and improper decommissioning leaves a legacy of leaking 'orphan' wells. The document emphasizes that these risks are magnified by climate change and that existing legal frameworks, including UNCLOS and the polluter pays principle, should be leveraged to phase out offshore fossil fuel extraction.

The document outlines a legal framework for challenging offshore oil and gas expansion, focusing on rights to information and participation, duties to prevent environmental and human rights harm, and the responsibility of polluters to pay for decommissioning and remediation.

The document argues that offshore oil and gas production poses severe risks, including underreported greenhouse gas emissions from flaring and methane leaks, the high potential for devastating well blowouts—especially in deep waters—and chronic marine pollution from produced water. It highlights the failure of current cleanup technologies and the long-term socio-economic damage to coastal communities, concluding that halting offshore expansion is essential to meeting the 1.5°C global warming limit.

The report provides a comprehensive analysis of the GSS+ debt market in H1 2025, highlighting a cumulative aligned volume of USD6.2tn. It examines the dominance of green bonds, the resurgence of social debt, and the growth of sustainability-linked bonds. The document also discusses the impact of the European Green Bond Standard, the rise of data-centre focused asset-backed securities, and strategic priorities for COP30, including methane abatement and the Tropical Forest Forever Fund.

The document outlines seven criteria for 'health-inclusive' NDCs, including alignment with 1.5°C warming limits, healthcare sector adaptation, and the reduction of super-pollutants. It provides a roadmap for civil society to engage governments, suggests interministerial coordination strategies, and identifies common barriers—such as ministerial silos and lack of data—alongside corresponding solutions to ensure health is prioritised in national climate plans.

Based on 225 interviews with high-level stakeholders, the report finds that while climate and health policies are currently largely siloed across the six studied regions, there is a strong consensus that further integration is necessary to maximize co-benefits and address complex challenges. Common barriers include funding shortages, data gaps, and institutional silos, while opportunities include upcoming policy deliberations and rising public awareness. The report suggests strategies such as adopting 'health in all policies' approaches, increasing the use of scientific evidence, and enhancing cross-sectoral collaboration.

The report finds that global warming of 0.3°C since 2015 has already increased the annual average of hot days by 11 per country. While current emissions pledges have reduced projected warming from 4°C to 2.6°C, the latter would still result in an average of 57 additional hot days per year compared to today. Case studies of six major heat events show that some would have been nearly impossible without climate change, and all have increased in intensity and likelihood. The document argues that while heat early warning systems have expanded, adaptation finance and systemic urban and labor reforms are insufficient to meet the escalating risks.

The report finds that while the UK acknowledges the link between climate change and health, practical policy integration is limited by siloed government departments, chronic underfunding, and short-term thinking. It highlights the 'Greener NHS' initiative as a relative success and suggests leveraging the NHS's scale and learning from devolved governments in Wales and Scotland to advance a holistic, systems-thinking approach that prioritises vulnerable populations and emphasises health co-benefits.

The report synthesizes 225 interviews with stakeholders to assess how climate and health policies are integrated. It finds that while these policies are currently siloed, there is a strong consensus that integration is necessary to maximize co-benefits and address complex health threats. The document identifies systemic barriers such as funding shortages and institutional silos, while proposing strategies like 'health in all policies' and the use of trusted health professionals as climate advocates.

The document critiques biodiversity offsetting and crediting mechanisms, asserting that they simplify complex ecosystems into tradable units, facilitate greenwashing by corporations, and threaten the land rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. It argues that these market-based approaches are 'worse than nothing' because they provide an illusion of progress while bypassing the mitigation hierarchy. Instead, the authors advocate for transformational change, the redirection of harmful subsidies, and the provision of biodiversity finance through grants and direct access to Indigenous-led governance systems.

The document critiques biodiversity offsets and credits, asserting that these mechanisms facilitate continued environmental destruction through 'greenwashing' and risk violating human rights. It argues that nature's complexity cannot be reduced to tradable units and suggests redirecting existing harmful subsidies toward indigenous-led conservation and direct grants instead of market-based instruments.

The document critiques biodiversity credits and offsets as illusory mechanisms that facilitate 'greenwashing' and allow destructive companies to avoid responsibility. It argues that these market-based tools simplify complex ecosystems into tradable units, often leading to human rights violations, land grabbing, and the displacement of local communities. The text suggests that instead of market mechanisms, biodiversity should be funded by redirecting harmful subsidies and supporting indigenous-led governance.

The document critiques biodiversity offsets and credits, describing them as 'false solutions' that facilitate continued environmental destruction through 'greenwashing'. It argues that these mechanisms simplify complex ecosystems into tradable units, often fail to achieve actual ecological restoration, and risk causing human rights violations, including land grabbing and forced displacement of indigenous communities. The text advocates for transformative changes and direct funding—such as redirecting harmful subsidies—over market-based commodification of nature.

The document critiques biodiversity offsets and credits as 'false solutions' that facilitate greenwashing and human rights violations while failing to restore ecosystems. It argues that these mechanisms allow companies to avoid responsibility for environmental destruction and suggests that funding for biodiversity should instead come from redirecting harmful subsidies and providing direct grants to indigenous-led initiatives.

The document is a training guide designed to move beyond a simple replacement of fossil fuels with renewables, advocating instead for a systemic change based on energy justice. It structures learning into three phases: 'Discover' (focusing on energy sufficiency and extractivism), 'Define' (conceptualizing just transitions), and 'Develop' (exploring circular systems and community-owned energy). The manual highlights the risks of 'green extractivism' and 'narrative injustice,' where climate goals are used to justify the expropriation of land and resources in the Global South. It provides case studies of community energy projects in Gambia, Denmark, Brazil, and the UK to illustrate scalable models of popular power and energy sovereignty.

The report outlines three primary investment opportunities in the Western Cape's renewable energy sector: embedded solar PV for C&I and agricultural users, large-scale wind and solar projects, and behind-the-meter (BTM) lithium-ion storage. While the market is driven by rising electricity costs, decarbonisation pressures from export markets (such as the EU's CBAM), and a liberalising regulatory framework (Electricity Regulation Amendment Act of 2024), it faces significant barriers. These include severe grid constraints, administrative backlogs in municipalities, a shortage of specialised technical skills, and a high reliance on imported battery components, particularly from China.

The report highlights a growing energy services market in South Africa, shifting from a primary reliance on mitigating loadshedding to goals of cost stability and decarbonisation. Embedded solar PV for the commercial, industrial, and agricultural (CI&A) sectors is projected to grow by 3.8 GW (estimated at R53.2 billion) by 2030. Behind-the-meter (BTM) Li-ion storage is expected to reach 2GWh (estimated at R10 billion) by 2030, driven by value-stacking use cases like peak shaving and tariff arbitrage. Key barriers include ageing municipal distribution infrastructure, administrative capacity constraints in municipalities, and a heavy reliance on imported battery components, particularly from China.

The report outlines a shift in South Africa's renewable energy sector from public procurement to private off-taker agreements, driven by electricity market liberalisation and corporate decarbonisation needs. It estimates a total investment potential of R132 billion for private renewable energy development and R16 billion for local component manufacturing by 2030. Key barriers include severe grid capacity constraints in high-resource provinces and policy uncertainty regarding the future of public procurement programmes.

The document defines ring-fencing as a limitation on the consolidation of income and deductions across different projects or activities for tax purposes. It argues that while ring-fencing can discourage investment in marginal ore bodies and increase compliance costs, it is essential for capturing economic rents, preventing permanent revenue loss from unsuccessful exploration, and mitigating BEPS practices. The guide recommends ring-fencing by mining licence area and suggests that profit-based taxes like Resource Rent Tax (RRT) and Additional Profit Tax (APT) must be ring-fenced to be effective. It also provides technical recommendations on apportioning indirect and general expenditures, suggesting that capital expenditure (CapEx) is a more effective allocation key than production volumes to avoid tax deferral.

The document examines the use of ring-fencing—the limitation of consolidating income and deductions across different mining projects or activities—as a tool for governments to ensure timely tax collection and protect the tax base. It analyzes the trade-offs between accelerating state revenue and potentially disincentivizing investment, particularly in marginal deposits. The guide provides detailed design options, such as ring-fencing by mining license area, activity type (upstream vs. downstream), or specific project, and offers recommendations on allocating indirect costs and managing transfer pricing risks. It also discusses exceptions for unsuccessful exploration costs to balance revenue goals with the need to attract exploration investment.