Search Climate Insights Directory

The report characterizes "advanced recycling" as a rebranding of chemical recycling, asserting that the plastics industry uses the term to greenwash its image and avoid regulations on virgin plastic production. It argues that chemical recycling is not a new technology, is economically unviable, cannot effectively process mixed post-consumer waste, and has a higher environmental footprint than mechanical recycling. The document further claims that the industry uses deceptive "mass balance" accounting to create a false appearance of circularity while primarily producing fuels rather than new plastics.

The playbook argues that gender integration in climate finance is a strategic necessity because women are disproportionately affected by climate change yet act as key drivers of adaptation and mitigation. It outlines a spectrum of gender integration—ranging from 'Gender Biased' to 'Gender Transformative'—and proposes a four-step process for creating gender-responsive instruments: conducting gender analysis, formulating a gender strategy, developing a gender action plan, and monitoring and evaluating outcomes. The guide provides specific implementation tools, including sample assessment areas for gender analysis and indicators for measuring success across internal operations, investment activities, beneficiary impacts, and capacity building.

Global climate finance for agrifood systems reached USD 94.9 billion in 2021/22, representing 7.2% of total global climate finance. While flows have increased since 2019/20, the report finds that investment is critically misaligned, with a massive funding gap of USD 1.1 trillion annually required through 2030 to align the sector with climate goals. Growth is heavily concentrated in domestic public investment in China and Europe, while private capital remains largely absent in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean. Mitigation finance is dominated by energy-related projects like agrivoltaics, while adaptation finance remains heavily reliant on public grants. The report calls for a strategic mix of financial instruments and policy reforms to unlock capital for high-impact solutions such as soil carbon management and nature-based solutions.

The document provides the technical framework for tracking climate finance in agrifood systems, introducing an expanded taxonomy and a keyword tagging system to capture investments in non-traditional sectors. It distinguishes between 'comparable' and 'adjusted' flows to separate actual investment growth from improvements in data collection. Key data sources include the Global Landscape of Climate Finance (GLCF) and specific agrifood datasets, with a notable increase in finance attributed to energy systems supporting agrifood between 2019/20 and 2021/22.

The report finds that while electric arc furnace (EAF) capacity is growing, the global steel industry is not on track for 2030 net-zero goals due to continued investment in coal-based blast furnaces, particularly in India and China. India has emerged as the largest developer of steel capacity, though most of its plans remain in the announcement stage and are heavily carbon-intensive. The report also highlights the strategic importance of iron ore producers like Australia and Brazil in enabling the transition to direct reduced iron (DRI) production.

The IAI's 2025 Open Access Policy mandates that all data and publications from IAI-funded projects be freely available, reusable, and redistributable. The policy integrates the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) for general scientific data and the CARE principles (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics) for data involving indigenous peoples and local communities. Key implementation measures for 2025-2030 include the creation of an open data catalog and an open access repository, the requirement for Data Management Plans (DMPs), and the use of persistent identifiers like DOIs. The IAI encourages the use of permissive licenses such as CC0 or CC BY and supports the deposition of biodiversity data in the GBIF platform. Financial support for data management costs may be available on a case-by-case basis, and the IAI will conduct periodic reviews of DMPs to ensure compliance.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) proposes revisions to the first draft of the Fourth Financing for Development Conference Outcome Document to increase ambition and specificity. Key recommendations include phasing out fossil fuel subsidies without 'inefficient' loopholes, strengthening natural resource taxation, and establishing a broad-based debt-relief initiative. The report also advocates for a phased approach to climate finance in least developed countries and the integration of green public procurement to align fiscal systems with climate goals.

The paper argues that while good adaptation practices exist, an intersectional approach is necessary to address the intersecting structures of inequity—such as racism, ableism, and gender inequality—that exacerbate vulnerability to climate change. Drawing from a May 2024 knowledge co-production workshop, the authors introduce foundational principles (centering justice, equity, and power disruption) and process principles (positionality, context-specificity, and co-production). These are applied to the four stages of the UNFCCC iterative adaptation cycle: risk assessment, planning, implementation, and monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL).

The document argues that while gender-responsive approaches are increasing, a truly intersectional approach is necessary to address the overlapping structures of inequality—such as racism, ageism, and disability discrimination—that exacerbate climate vulnerability. It outlines core and process principles to guide practitioners through the four stages of the adaptation cycle: risk assessment, planning, implementation, and monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL).

The document argues that while intersectionality is increasingly recognized as vital for equitable climate adaptation, its practical application remains limited. It presents a framework of 'fundamental principles' (focusing on systemic vulnerability, agency, and power) and 'process principles' (such as positionality reflection and context-specificity) to be integrated across the four stages of the adaptation cycle: risk assessment, planning, implementation, and monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL).

The report compares the IUCN Global Standard for NbS and the CBD Voluntary Guidelines, concluding that both are highly compatible and align with UNEA Resolution 5/5. While the IUCN standard provides high-level overarching criteria for a wide range of NbS, the CBD guidelines offer more detailed, step-by-step operational guidance specifically for ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) and ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR). The analysis recommends that future international efforts focus on compiling existing guidance and avoiding the duplication of work rather than creating new sets of guidelines.

Reclaim Finance critiques PCAF's proposed expansion of avoided emissions reporting and the introduction of Expected Emission Reductions (EER), warning that these counterfactual-based metrics are subjective and prone to greenwashing. The briefing also highlights flaws in the 'financed emissions' formula, noting that it often fails to track real-world emissions due to its sensitivity to corporate value fluctuations. Reclaim Finance recommends that PCAF withdraw these proposed methodologies and instead adopt metrics that reflect actual counterparty performance and physical emissions intensities for target setting.

The document analyzes global agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, noting that the sector accounted for approximately 20% of global anthropogenic emissions in 2022. It identifies ruminant livestock and deforestation as the primary drivers of these emissions and highlights significant regional variations in emission intensities. The author argues that coupled subsidies and market price supports incentivize environmentally harmful practices and recommends repurposing these funds toward sustainable management, innovation, and uncoupled payments to reduce the sector's carbon footprint while balancing food security and livelihoods.

The report examines the environmental impacts of agricultural subsidies, noting that total global support ranges from $610 to $842 billion per year. It argues that while production-linked supports—such as market price support and input subsidies—are often the most harmful, impacts are highly context-specific. The authors propose several frameworks for identifying harmful subsidies, including the use of meta-analyses of farming practices and the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model. To address these issues internationally, the report suggests options such as enhanced transparency, the use of 'rebuttable presumptions' to shift the burden of proof to subsidizing countries, and special and differential treatment for developing nations to balance environmental goals with food security and livelihoods.

The briefing contends that the Asian Development Bank (ADB) uses technical assistance (TA) to enable fossil gas infrastructure and planning, despite pledges to align with the Paris Agreement. It highlights how vague terms like 'low-carbon' and 'transition infrastructure' allow the ADB to support gas-related projects in countries such as Pakistan and Indonesia. The document notes that TA for energy projects in 2024 lacked fuel specifications in 45.9% of cases, hindering transparency. It further argues that these projects often ignore gender impacts and risk creating stranded assets. The author recommends that the ADB explicitly exclude fossil gas from its 'clean energy' definitions and phase out all direct and indirect support for midstream and downstream gas infrastructure.

The report presents evidence that major fossil fuel companies possessed accurate knowledge of the catastrophic effects of their products on the global climate as early as the 1980s but instead funded campaigns of disinformation and deception. It highlights specific internal documents from Shell and ExxonMobil, a 1998 American Petroleum Institute 'Roadmap' to increase public uncertainty, and allegations of a criminal hacking scheme targeting climate advocates. The Union of Concerned Scientists calls for these corporations to cease greenwashing, pay for climate damages, and accelerate a global phaseout of fossil fuels.

The report outlines the commercial and climate imperatives for heavy industries to adopt carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies. It identifies synergies where industrial waste, infrastructure, and expertise can accelerate the scale-up of biogenic, geochemical, and synthetic CDR. The document provides a framework for monetization through carbon credits, green premiums, and government incentives, while warning against 'mitigation deterrence'—the risk that CDR replaces essential decarbonization efforts.

In 2024, global coal power capacity increased by 18.8 GW, as 44.1 GW was commissioned and 25.2 GW retired. While the EU27 saw a fourfold increase in retirements and the UK completed its coal phaseout, global progress was offset by significant expansion in China and India. China commissioned 30.5 GW (70% of the global total) and saw 94.5 GW in new construction starts. India recorded its highest-ever level of new coal proposals at 38.4 GW. Conversely, coal proposals in OECD countries dropped from 142 in 2015 to five today, though retirements in these nations must triple to align with the Paris Agreement.

In 2024, fossil-powered capacity fell below half of the total electricity mix for the BRICS group, driven by renewable growth in China, India, and Brazil. However, new BRICS members—including Indonesia, Kazakhstan, and Nigeria—show a stark gap between net-zero pledges and action, currently constructing ten times more fossil fuel capacity (25 GW) than wind and utility-scale solar (2.3 GW). Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are central to this expansion, backing 62% of all power capacity under construction in new member geographies, with particularly high involvement in hydropower (93%) and coal (88%).

The IAI's Open Data and Science Working Group has developed an updated Open Access to Data and Publications Policy to align with global Open Science movements. The policy mandates that all data and publications from IAI-funded research be open, adhering to FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) and CARE (Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics) principles. The report details progress in training 12 research teams and a 600% increase in the open data catalog from 2020 to 2025. It also outlines an implementation plan for 2025–2030 focused on increasing regional capacity for data reuse and supporting Indigenous data governance.