Search Climate Insights Directory

The author contends that Europe's energy scarcity is a long-term reality that cannot be solved by new fossil fuels or nuclear power, necessitating a shift toward 'energy sobriety'. This approach distinguishes itself from energy efficiency by focusing on the fair distribution of energy reduction rather than technical innovation. The text explores historical precedents for rationing in France and the Netherlands to argue that collective sufficiency is feasible. Proposed mechanisms for a just transition include progressive energy tariffs—where essential use is cheap and misuse is expensive—and personal carbon quotas to ensure equitable distribution and prevent social conflict during the energy transition.

The report examines the impact of housing commodification in European cities, contrasting the neoliberal policies of the UK and Germany with the social housing models of Vienna, France, and Barcelona. It highlights how public investment and political commitment to housing as a human right, rather than a market asset, lead to lower rent burdens and better urban quality of life.

The report analyzes the 'Nature Positive' concept, which aims to stop and reverse biodiversity loss. It argues that the term is vaguely defined and relies on 'net gain' accounting, which allows for the continued destruction of ecosystems if compensated elsewhere. The authors contend that such offsetting is often technically impossible, particularly in forest and marine ecosystems, and frequently leads to human rights violations against Indigenous Peoples and local communities. The document further asserts that the concept is pushed by the private sector to avoid strong regulations and to create new business opportunities, while failing to integrate the rights and knowledge of those who protect 80% of existing biodiversity.

The author argues that the Brothers of Italy (FdI) won the 2022 Italian elections not through ideology, but by promising security and a stronger state during a period of energy crisis and war. While the centre-right coalition shared a platform, FdI distinguished itself by prioritizing energy security, a presidential system, and cutting spending—including the abolition of green renovation grants—which aligned with voter priorities over climate action or immigration. Conversely, the centre-left failed by focusing on discrediting opponents rather than offering credible alternatives on economic intervention and social liberalism.

The letter asserts that the Energy Charter Treaty's modernisation process is insufficient, as it maintains investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms and protects fossil fuel assets for at least a decade in the EU and UK. It notes that several EU Member States, representing over 70% of the EU population, have already announced their withdrawal. The authors urge the European Commission to facilitate a coordinated EU withdrawal to avoid legal limbo and prevent fossil fuel investors from hindering climate action.

The document reviews eleven research projects to identify which climate engagement frames resonate with seven British public segments. It finds that nature and health-related frames are generally stable and effective, while economic and political messaging requires careful tailoring to avoid alienating lower-income or conservative-leaning groups. The review emphasizes the need for positive framing and the recognition of differing capacities for individual action amidst cost-of-living crises.

The Public Service Media and Public Service Internet Manifesto calls for a transition from traditional public broadcasting to a 'Public Service Internet' to counter the negative impacts of commercial digital giants on democracy. It proposes a digital ecosystem based on transparency, data privacy, and public funding, where algorithms are open-source and content is designed for citizens rather than consumers. The manifesto envisions a 2040 utopia where Public Service Media is a universal, diverse, and sustainably funded network infrastructure that promotes media literacy and social cohesion.

The document contends that the current energy crisis is a "natural gas market crisis" caused by fossil fuel price volatility, specifically citing the Russian invasion of Ukraine and post-pandemic recovery. It argues that natural gas is incompatible with the 1.5°C and 2°C Paris Agreement targets, noting that global gas emissions rose 23% between 2010 and 2019. The briefing highlights that solar and onshore wind are now cheaper than gas for two-thirds of the global population and that new gas projects face significant stranded asset risks, such as a USD 13 billion risk in the UK by 2050. It dismisses Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) as an effective solution, noting that only 27 of over 260 projects undertaken between 1995 and 2018 were completed. Finally, it argues that for Africa, renewables are the fastest and cheapest way to expand energy access, as gas costs are projected to be double those of solar and wind by 2030.

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 Institute for Economic Justice criticizes the $8.5-billion Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) in South Africa, arguing that its reliance on loans and private-sector 'de-risking' rather than grants will increase energy costs and benefit foreign investors while neglecting local manufacturing and worker protections. The document further condemns the secretive nature of the negotiations, which it claims undermines procedural justice and excludes key stakeholders.

The Institute for Economic Justice argues that South Africa's JETP is a flawed climate finance model that relies heavily on loans rather than grants, benefiting private Independent Power Producers (IPPs) while leaving the state with the financial risk. The author contends that the deal lacks transparency, fails to adequately fund the localization of the renewable energy value chain, and provides insufficient social security for workers in the coal belt.

The report warns that massive LNG expansion and a lack of ambitious national climate targets are jeopardizing the 1.5°C warming limit. It highlights that current 2030 targets lead to 2.4°C of warming and that LNG capacity under construction could increase emissions by over 1.9 GtCO2e per year by 2030 above Net Zero scenarios. While some policy progress is noted in the US, China, and the EU, international climate finance remains insufficient, and the phase-down of coal is largely being ignored by major emitters.

The document argues that biogas and biomethane should primarily be reserved for hard-to-abate sectors like petrochemical production and industrial heating, as electrification via renewable energy is more cost-effective for power and heat. It highlights that biogas only addresses a minority of agricultural emissions (at most 28.9%) and warns that scaling production to meet targets, such as the EU's 35 bcm goal by 2030, could threaten food security by requiring significant arable land. Additionally, the briefing notes risks from fugitive methane emissions, high reliance on public subsidies, and safety hazards including explosions and toxicity.

ClientEarth argues that the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill creates a 'cliff-edge' by providing for the automatic revocation of all retained EU law (REUL) by the end of 2023. The briefing identifies five fundamental flaws: the potential loss of critical protections for species, air, and water quality due to administrative neglect; legislative chaos and business uncertainty; the undermining of the rule of law through the use of secondary legislation without parliamentary oversight; the politicization of the judiciary; and a built-in deregulatory bias that may breach international obligations like the Aarhus Convention and the Trade and Cooperation Agreement.

The E4N partnership, a collaboration between the Green Economy Coalition, Capitals Coalition, Green Growth Knowledge Partnership, and WWF France, worked to make 'natural capital-based green economies' a global best practice. The partnership focused on creating tools for measuring nature's value, convening multistakeholder networks, and advocating for the inclusion of nature in economic decision-making. Key achievements include the development of the Green Economy Tracker, the establishment of Business for Nature, and the integration of natural capital into the EU Green Deal and African development finance. While the report notes a shift toward 'nature-positive economies,' it highlights persistent challenges in data quality and capacity, as well as a gap between government rhetoric and actual policy implementation during COVID-19 green recovery efforts.

The document highlights the disproportionate impact of climate hazards on women, particularly those in marginalized communities, and argues that women's participation in decision-making leads to more effective climate-resilient policies. It reviews the Lima Work Programme on Gender and specific pledges from COP26, such as the UK's £165 million commitment to address inequalities, while calling for stricter implementation of gender-related goals during COP27.

The document analyzes the momentum behind the 30x30 goal to protect 30% of the world's land and marine areas by 2030, noting the roles of the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People and the Global Ocean Alliance. It highlights the influence of the UN Ocean Conference and the upcoming CBD COP15 on COP27, suggesting that while the 30x30 framework will be settled after COP27, the summit may see new country commitments and policies regarding forests and marine resources.

The report finds that 15 major meat and dairy companies produce combined methane emissions of 12.8 million tonnes, representing 11.1% of global livestock-related methane. These emissions exceed the total methane footprints of countries like Russia, Canada, and Australia. The authors highlight a severe lack of corporate transparency, noting that 60% of the analyzed companies fail to report total supply chain (scope 3) emissions. The report criticizes governments for relying on 'techno fixes' like anaerobic digesters rather than reducing livestock numbers, and calls for binding targets and a just transition toward agroecology.

The report finds that 15 major meat and dairy companies emit approximately 12.8 million tonnes of methane, representing 3.4% of global anthropogenic methane emissions and 11.1% of livestock-related methane. These combined emissions exceed the methane footprints of several countries, including Russia, Canada, Australia, and Germany. The authors highlight a pervasive lack of corporate transparency, noting that 60% of the companies fail to report total GHGs or scope 3 emissions, and none report supply chain methane. The report calls for mandatory reporting, binding reduction targets, and a systemic shift away from industrial animal agriculture.

The report estimates that five of the largest meat companies and ten of the largest dairy corporations emit approximately 12.8 million tonnes of methane, representing 3.4% of global anthropogenic methane emissions and 11.1% of global livestock methane. Total greenhouse gas emissions for these companies reach 734 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, exceeding Germany's national emissions. The authors highlight a lack of corporate transparency, noting that 60% of the analyzed companies do not report total emissions or Scope 3 emissions, and none reported supply chain methane. The report calls for binding reduction targets, mandatory reporting, and a systemic shift toward agroecology to meet the 1.5°C global warming limit.