Search Climate Insights Directory

The briefing outlines four priority areas for climate negotiations leading up to COP26: finalizing the Paris Agreement rulebook (specifically common timeframes for NDCs, transparency frameworks, and Article 6 carbon markets), establishing metrics for adaptation and loss and damage, addressing the shortfall in public climate finance for developing nations, and bridging implementation gaps for the 'decade of ambition'. It highlights the role of the 2020 Climate Dialogues in maintaining momentum and warns that a lack of public funding and transparency from developed nations threatens trust and the success of future negotiations.

The briefing argues that biological weapons remain a viable and rational strategic option for some states due to their low cost, potential for deniability, and asymmetric impact. It challenges the notion that these weapons are tactically useless or too risky to develop, noting that historical precedents and the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate that leaders may prioritize state status or regime survival over the risks of blowback. The authors further contend that bioweapons programs are not always top-down initiatives and that current international norms, specifically the Biological Weapons Convention, lack the enforcement and verification mechanisms necessary to effectively stop such programs.

The Climate Change Performance Index 2021 finds that no country is currently on a path compliant with the Paris Agreement goals. While the EU improved its ranking to 16th place and countries like Sweden, the UK, and Denmark lead, major G20 emitters including the USA, Saudi Arabia, and Russia are rated 'very low'. The report highlights a divide between high-performing smaller nations and developing countries like Morocco, Chile, and India, and the lowest-performing fossil fuel producing nations.

Five years after the Paris Agreement, there has been a significant increase in net-zero commitments from major economies and businesses, though current pledges only limit temperature rise to 2.1ºC. The author argues that green recovery plans provide better economic and employment benefits than traditional stimulus and calls for mandatory climate-related financial disclosures and the removal of fossil fuel subsidies to unlock further private investment.

The UK's decision to increase its 2030 emissions reduction target to at least 68% compared to 1990 levels is framed as a positive signal for business investment and economic growth. The author asserts that a zero-carbon transition is the most effective way to drive job creation and GDP growth during the recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic, outperforming traditional stimulus measures. The text highlights the role of the Science Based Target initiative, with over 1,060 companies committing to Paris Agreement-aligned decarbonization plans, and calls for clear roadmaps incorporating finance and just transition principles to maximize competitiveness.

The document argues that while many countries have submitted long-term climate strategies, a formal decision at COP26 is necessary to provide a new timeframe for submissions, encourage regular updates, and align these strategies with short-term Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). It outlines six functions for such a decision, including welcoming existing strategies and facilitating continuous improvement based on science and national developments. The author emphasizes that long-term strategies are critical for guiding structural economic shifts, sparking innovation, and ensuring a just transition for workforces.

The policy brief argues that carbon capture is a bipartisan avenue for climate action and proposes seven priorities: optimizing the 45Q tax credit, investing in CO2 transport and storage infrastructure, expanding the Department of Energy's mission, decarbonizing hard-to-abate industries, scaling up low-carbon hydrogen, establishing leadership in carbon removal, and aligning capital flows with innovation needs.

The report evaluates the climate and air quality impacts of residual waste treatment in the UK, comparing landfill and incineration across different scenarios. It finds that while incineration may currently appear more favorable due to energy credits, its relative performance is expected to decline by 2035 as the electricity grid decarbonises and waste composition changes. The study emphasizes that pre-treatment is essential for both technologies to align with net-zero targets and notes that incineration has a more significant negative impact on local air quality than landfill.

Ember argues that the viability of BECCS as a negative emissions mechanism is undermined by the fact that burning biomass may be net carbon emitting rather than carbon neutral. The document highlights the lack of UK policy measures to ensure carbon-saving biomass production and warns that the land requirements for energy crops could lead to significant food, water, and biodiversity impacts. Furthermore, Ember contends that public subsidies for BECCS are expensive and potentially less effective than investing in rapid decarbonisation or natural forest restoration.

The report outlines two primary decarbonisation scenarios for India's transport sector: a 'Rail focused' pathway and a 'Road focused' pathway. Both scenarios emphasise that electrification is essential, aiming for nearly 100% electrification of road fleets by 2050. The Rail focused scenario prioritises a massive modal shift toward public transit and rail freight, which significantly reduces the total number of electric vehicles needed. The Road focused scenario assumes continued growth in private vehicle ownership, relying more heavily on rapid electrification and alternative fuels. The analysis identifies four priority action areas: sustainable urban planning to counter urban sprawl, improving non-motorised and public transport, expanding high-quality railway infrastructure, and electrifying all road vehicle fleets. It concludes that achieving these goals will require substantial international financial support and the adoption of global good-practice policies from regions like China, California, and Europe.

The report finds that Spanish supermarkets are failing to address the sustainability of their aquaculture supply chains, with none setting targets to eliminate wild fish from feed. It highlights the ecological damage caused by the production of Fish Meal and Fish Oil (FMFO) in regions like Peru and West Africa and criticizes the industry's reliance on certifications as a substitute for genuine sustainability.

The document examines the risks posed to UK agricultural environmental standards by new Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), particularly with the US, Australia, and New Zealand. It proposes a system of 'core' environmental standards based on environmental significance, production constraints, and cost impacts. To protect these, the author suggests several mechanisms: voluntary labelling, legally binding non-regression clauses, conditional import tariffs, and the introduction of mandatory environmental standards for imports. The briefing emphasizes the need for an independent expert body to provide the evidence base and governance required to implement these measures without breaching WTO rules.

The 2020 report outlines the progress of the WHO-Civil Society Working Group, highlighting its role in advocating for a 'healthy recovery' from COVID-19 and placing health at the center of UNFCCC dialogues. Key achievements include a mobilization of over 40 million health professionals, the delivery of a health-focused webinar for students in Portugal, and the initiation of a literature review to update research gaps in climate and health. The group aims to further align health civil society efforts leading up to COP26 in Glasgow.

The report finds that while renewable energy investment is growing, continued funding for fossil fuel power plants and the presence of 'locked-in' emissions from existing assets keep the global power sector on a temperature trajectory exceeding 3.2°C. It highlights a significant gap between actual 2018 investment carbon intensities and the negative thresholds required by 2030 to achieve Paris alignment. The analysis identifies specific misalignments among major economies like China, India, and Japan, and among financial actors such as commercial banks and export credit agencies. The document recommends halting new carbon-intensive investments, accelerating the retirement of existing fossil fuel plants, and harmonizing climate risk reporting.

The document analyzes COVID-19 recovery funding for cities, noting that while USD 1.1 trillion was pledged, the vast majority (USD 916 billion) targeted short-term liquidity rather than long-term climate resilience. It identifies gaps in funding programming and recommends that funders structure instruments for direct city access, utilize project preparation facilities, and leverage city networks to bridge the investment gap for green infrastructure.

The document examines the COVID-19 pandemic as a systemic crisis that exposed deep inequalities and the fragility of market-based systems. It argues that the health crisis is inextricably linked to environmental collapse, specifically biodiversity loss and zoonotic risks. The text advocates for the revival of the social state, the implementation of a 'foundational economy' that prioritizes basic human needs over profit, and the adoption of 'technological humanism' to bridge the digital divide. It also analyzes the political responses of Green parties in Europe and the rise of authoritarianism and right-wing populism during the crisis, while highlighting grassroots solidarity networks and the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on marginalized groups, including migrants and the elderly.

The Climate Action Tracker (CAT) reports that a wave of net zero pledges from 127 countries could reduce projected warming by 2100 to as low as 2.1°C. However, current policies still put the world on a trajectory of 2.9°C, and a significant emissions gap remains for 2030.

The author contends that because a link between the EU carbon market and the UK is now impossible after Brexit, the UK should adopt a carbon tax on January 1st. This is presented as a superior alternative to a 'risky and highly complex' UK-only Emissions Trading System, providing necessary certainty for businesses and investors.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) commends the Canadian government for tabling Bill C-12, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. The organization highlights four key strengths of the legislation: the legal enshrining of the 2050 net-zero target, a five-year milestone accountability framework, the creation of an independent science-based advisory body, and new requirements for reporting climate-related financial risks within the federal government. While supporting the act as a foundation for a resilient recovery, IISD notes that it lacks specific initiatives to reach net zero and calls for further actions, including a detailed 2030 target plan, sectoral pathways, a Just Transition Act, and a National Adaptation Plan.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) supports the UK government's Green Recovery plan for its focus on carbon capture and storage (CCS) and low carbon hydrogen as essential for net-zero goals. The plan allocates £1bn total to CCS and £500M to low carbon hydrogen, targeting industrial clusters such as Teesside and Humber. While endorsing the 'all of the above' approach and the development of zero carbon liquid fuels, CATF emphasizes that the UK must immediately reduce methane emissions from natural gas to effectively mitigate warming.