© Jacques Descloitres, MODIS Rapid Response Team, NASA/GSFC
The environmental and development organisation Germanwatch points out that fossil fuel companies will have to disclose climate risks in their risk reports and have them externally audited. The reason for this is a new study by a team of researchers from the renowned London School of Economics and Political Science, which shows a clear connection between climate litigation and share price losses of affected companies.
In a series of dialogues with Indonesian civil society organisations (CSOs), Germanwatch and the Habibie Center explored how to integrate social justice aspects into the energy transition debate in Indonesia. This policy brief provides the context for how Indonesian CSOs view the JETP and how they relate to other key socio-economic issues.
There are several metrics and possibilities to measure the performance of climate policies and actions, which differ in methodology and indicator choice.
Our Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) measures the climate performance of 59 countries (and the EU) that are collectively responsible for over 90% of global emissions. All major economies and many emerging economies are included.
The CCPI is based on criteria including the country’s emissions levels, energy use, and use of renewable energy, as well as its climate policies (find more about our methodology here). Other indexes place their focus in different areas and this post will examine those, as well, giving credit where due, because all the indexes serve an important role.
This post examines the importance of scientific climate performance indexes, and how you can understand them.
Year after year, the CCPI finds economically developed countries from the Global North, including many EU countries, contributed disproportionally to global warming. Factors such as high greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, lagging climate policy, and high energy use are responsible for a low rank in the CCPI. However, which are the worst polluters, and why? The CCPI can identify them in several easy-to-understand ways. It shows their poor climate performance and opportunities for them to improve on it and take effective climate action.
The emerging polycrisis is challenging governments and institutions around the world. Especially countries in the Global South lack the financial capacity to address the current challenges and simultaneously prepare their nations for the impacts of climate change. The existing international financial architecture has so far been unable to provide the necessary financial resources.There are three major reform proposals that address different institutions within the international financial architecture. This primer introduces the proposals presented and provides an overview of the main institutions and actors involved in the process in Germany.
The LIFE TogetherFor1.5 project aims to align the EU’s climate action with the 1.5°C objective of the Paris Agreement. 13 national CSOs and CAN Europe (the leading climate NGO coalition in Europe) have been building on climate and energy policy revision opportunities, such as the finalisation of the ‘Fit for 55’ legislative package, national energy and climate plans (NECPs), and the revision of national long-term strategies.
The 17th meeting of the Executive Committee (ExCom) of the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage (WIM) took place ahead of COP27, where countries then agreed to establish new financing arrangements and a fund for Loss and Damage.
At the ExCom meeting, among other things, the 5-year rolling work plan was adopted, reflections on the working methods of the ExCom were debated and the cooperation with the Subsidiary Body for Implementation in the context of the Glasgow Dialogue was discussed. This report focuses on the latter.
One of the three main goals of the Paris Agreement is to ‘make finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development’, as stated in Article 2.1c. This long-term goal recognises that, complementary to an increase in finance that supports climate action, there needs to be redirection of finance, both public and private, that locks countries into a future of low emissions and higher resilience. Given that Article 2.1c has yet to be fully operationalised, this case study examines the progress towards implementing it in Germany. It is a first attempt to provide a comprehensive analysis framework for the implementation of Article 2.1c.
This policy brief adresses two important questions:
Firstly, the role of climate litigation this far in adressing legal claims for loss and damage.
Secondly, the potential that climate litigation holds in redressing the claims of losses and damages.
The brief provides an analysis of how two arenas of legal action - negotiations and litigation - interact and how they can work together to provide a more robust legal basis for supporting issues of loss and damage.