Search Climate Insights Directory

The document details a series of European Commission proposals to meet 'Fit for 55' objectives, including stricter CO2 standards for vehicles, the creation of a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), and revisions to the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR). It also describes the Social Climate Fund (SCF) to mitigate social impacts of emissions trading in buildings and transport, and updated LULUCF targets for carbon removals. Finally, it explains the EU's co-decision legislative process involving the Commission, Parliament, and Council.

The document details the legal challenge by Plan B Earth and others against the UK Government's Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) supporting a third runway at Heathrow Airport. The central dispute was whether the Secretary of State failed to account for the Paris Agreement under the Planning Act 2008 and the SEA Directive. While the Court of Appeal initially found the designation unlawful due to a failure to consider the Paris Agreement as 'Government policy', the UK Supreme Court ultimately reversed this decision. The Supreme Court ruled that the Secretary of State had lawfully exercised discretion and that the Paris Agreement's obligations were sufficiently reflected in the Climate Change Act 2008.

The guide outlines eight key recommendations for climate advocacy to ensure fairness is central to campaign design. It emphasizes the need to understand divergent perceptions of fairness between left- and right-leaning audiences, the importance of genuine public participation in policy design, and the use of trusted, diverse messengers to reach skeptical communities. The document suggests framing the energy transition as a tool to combat existing inequality in Britain and positioning UK leadership in net zero as a matter of national interest and pride, regardless of the actions of other nations like China or India.

The We Mean Business Coalition urges G7 leaders to lead a rapid transition away from fossil fuels through specific targets, including decarbonized power systems by 2035 and the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies by 2025. The coalition emphasizes that the war in Ukraine has highlighted the vulnerability of fossil fuel dependence and calls for strengthened NDCs, scaled-up renewable energy, and mandatory corporate climate disclosures to ensure a just and people-centred transition.

The We Mean Business Coalition calls for global consistency in corporate sustainability reporting to support the Paris Agreement and the Glasgow Climate Pact. The coalition argues that misalignments in terminology and definitions between the SEC, EFRAG, GRI, and ISSB risk undermining the impact of these standards and increasing reporting burdens for companies. Specifically, the coalition urges the CSRD to align with ISSB and GRI on impact materiality, calls on the US SEC to allow the use of ISSB standards to meet reporting obligations, and encourages the ISSB to establish itself as the global baseline for sustainability-related financial disclosures.

ClientEarth and other NGOs express disappointment over a CEFAS report revealing that only 35% of 2022 UK-relevant fisheries catch limits were set in line with scientific advice, with nearly two-thirds exceeding those limits. The authors argue this failure violates the Fisheries Act and the 'Leader’s Pledge for Nature', and they request transparency regarding which TACs the UK advocated to set above scientific advice.

Reclaim Finance asserts that Shell's climate strategy is fundamentally flawed, predicting the company will overshoot its 1.5°C carbon budget by 40.9% by 2050 and exhaust it entirely by 2034. The organization criticizes Shell's reliance on carbon intensity metrics, nature-based offsets, and continued expansion into new oil and gas fields, including unconventional sectors like the Arctic and fracking. Consequently, it recommends that shareholders vote against the company's climate resolution, support a shareholder-led resolution for Paris-aligned targets, and vote against the reelection of 10 Board Directors.

The Philippines Commission on Human Rights (CHR) concluded a seven-year inquiry finding that 47 'Carbon Majors' companies contributed significantly to global emissions and engaged in 'willful obfuscation' of climate science despite knowing the risks since at least 1965. The report details severe human rights impacts in the Philippines, including threats to the rights to life, health, food security, and water, disproportionately affecting vulnerable groups such as women, children, and Indigenous Peoples. The CHR asserts that these companies, and the financial institutions that fund them, have a responsibility to respect human rights and provide remediation for climate-driven harms. It recommends that states implement punitive laws for environmental harm, put a price on pollution, and transition to renewable energy by 2030 to meet the 1.5°C limit.

Australia has become a global leader in decarbonizing high-end commercial buildings through 'ambition loops'—positive feedback cycles where government regulation, industry collaboration, and market demand reinforce each other. Early leadership from the Victoria state government and the Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council (ASBEC) helped overcome initial knowledge gaps and lack of demand. The implementation of mandatory efficiency codes and transparency tools, such as the Commercial Building Disclosure Program and the National Australian Built Environment Rating System (NABERS), created a competitive environment where sustainable buildings attract more corporate tenants and investors. This model has since influenced residential and construction sectors in Australia and exported rating systems to New Zealand and the UK.

The report argues that while Europe has significant theoretical CO2 storage capacity, actual deployment is hindered by a funding gap, regulatory barriers to cross-border transport, and a lack of coordinated infrastructure. It recommends shifting from project-based funding to system-based approaches, implementing carbon contracts for difference (CCfDs), and establishing a market for low-carbon products. The authors call for a formal EU strategy to set milestone targets and coordinate the development of large-scale, open-access storage sites beyond the North Sea.

The report finds that European supermarkets generally exhibit low transparency and ambition regarding plastic reduction, with an overall average score of 13.1%. Most retailers rely on voluntary commitments and recyclability rather than waste prevention and reuse systems. While some UK retailers show higher performance, there is significant inconsistency in policies across international retail groups, and some companies are accused of greenwashing through ineffective recycling schemes that result in waste being exported and dumped in third countries like Turkey.

The report finds that European supermarkets generally exhibit low transparency and ambition regarding plastic reduction, often relying on voluntary commitments and recycling-focused strategies rather than systemic reuse. An analysis of 74 retailers reveals an average total score of only 13.1%, with significant disparities in performance between different countries where the same retail chains operate. The document highlights tactics used by retailers to delay legislative progress, such as lobbying against deposit return systems (DRS), and criticizes 'greenwashing' practices, including the mislabeling of single-use plastics as reusable.

The report finds that European supermarkets generally perform poorly in addressing the plastic crisis, with an average score of 13.1% across transparency, commitments, and policy support. While some UK and Irish retailers score higher, most companies lack basic data on their plastic footprints and prioritize recyclability over waste prevention. The analysis highlights a tendency toward 'greenwashing,' where retailers promote voluntary pledges or flawed collection schemes instead of systemic changes or supporting binding legislation.

The report reveals a significant gap between the public communications of European retailers and their actual performance in reducing plastic pollution, with a global average score of only 13.1% across transparency, commitments, and policy support. While some retailers like Aldi in the UK and Ireland score higher, the majority fail to provide basic data on their plastic footprints or support mandatory reuse targets. The analysis highlights a systemic preference for voluntary commitments and recyclability over waste prevention and reuse, while warning against 'greenwashing' practices such as exporting flexible plastics to third countries like Turkey where they may be illegally burned.

The report finds that European supermarkets generally perform poorly in addressing the plastic crisis, with an average score of 13.1% across transparency, commitments, and policy support. While some UK and Irish chains score higher, most companies lack basic data on their plastic footprints and fail to implement systemic changes like reusable packaging. The analysis highlights a preference for voluntary commitments over binding regulations and warns against greenwashing practices, such as exporting flexible plastics to third countries like Turkey.

The report finds that European supermarkets generally exhibit low ambition and transparency regarding plastic pollution, with a global average score of only 13.1%. Most retailers prioritize recyclability over waste prevention and reuse, often relying on voluntary commitments and 'greenwashing' tactics rather than systemic changes. While some UK and Irish retailers score higher, there is significant inconsistency within international groups, and very few support binding government targets or comprehensive deposit return systems.

The report finds that European supermarkets generally perform poorly in managing plastic pollution, with a mean score of 13.1% across transparency, commitments, and policy support. While some UK and Irish chains like Aldi score higher, many others show minimal transparency and a preference for voluntary commitments over systemic changes like reuse and mandatory deposit systems. The analysis highlights instances of greenwashing, where plastic waste collected in stores was exported and illegally dumped in Turkey.

China's green bond market experienced record growth in 2021, driven by the nation's '30·60' climate targets and the 14th Five-Year Plan. Annual issuance aligned with Climate Bonds definitions reached USD 68.2 billion, making China the second largest green bond market globally. The market saw a significant shift as non-financial corporates became the primary source of supply, overtaking financial corporates. Over 60% of the use-of-proceeds was directed toward renewable energy. The report also highlights the emergence of carbon neutrality bonds and transition finance as key tools for decarbonizing high-emitting sectors.

The report contends that fossil gas cannot be considered a transition fuel due to significant methane leakage and the need for rapid decarbonisation by 2030. It argues that the EU's Complementary Delegated Act threatens the credibility of the EU Taxonomy by allowing fossil gas as a transitional activity. The document advocates for a rapid shift to low-carbon hydrogen, prioritised for hard-to-abate sectors, and warns against 'gas blending' as an inefficient decarbonisation strategy. It recommends the use of additionality requirements for electrolysers to prevent them from cannibalising renewable energy growth and suggests various financial mechanisms, including Carbon Contracts for Difference (CCfDs) and green public procurement, to mobilise investment. The report also emphasizes the need for a Just Transition to protect workers and low-income households from the regressive effects of carbon pricing.

ClientEarth argues that the UK Government's proposed 2040 air quality targets are insufficiently ambitious and urges respondents to advocate for a 2030 deadline for PM2.5 concentration targets to protect public health and reduce economic costs.