Search Climate Insights Directory

The Grand River Environmental Network, the Ontario Headwaters Institute, and 24 other organizations are calling for the withdrawal of Schedule 10 of Bill 66. They argue that the legislation violates campaign promises to protect the Greenbelt and creates unnecessary municipal powers to identify employment lands despite a lack of shortage. The signatories claim the bill is "corrosive to environmental and public health" by exempting land from the Provincial Policy Statement and the Clean Water Act, potentially risking water safety and biodiversity. Furthermore, they assert that the bill "subverts democracy" by allowing municipalities to bypass official plans and deny public consultation and appeal rights.

The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that the Trump administration undermined air quality protections by disbanding scientific review panels, replacing independent experts with industry-linked regulators, and proposing rules to restrict the use of epidemiological studies in policy. The document highlights the elimination of the "once in, always in" policy for hazardous air pollutants and the suppression of a report on formaldehyde's cancer risks, recommending that Congress codify the use of pollutant review panels and investigate the impacts of these actions on public health.

The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that the Trump administration censored federal scientists by restricting communications, creating a chilling environment, and limiting conference attendance. It recommends that Congress investigate these actions, expand the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, and pass the Scientific Integrity Act to protect science-based policymaking.

The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that the Trump administration sidelined science in public health and environmental decision-making through executive orders and restrictive EPA rules. Key actions include requiring a two-for-one rule repeal, slashing the social cost of carbon, and restricting the use of scientific studies with non-public raw data. The document recommends that Congress investigate these threats, codify agency deference on science-based laws, and increase transparency within the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).

The Union of Concerned Scientists reports a pattern of hostility toward science during the first two years of the Trump administration, citing instances of political interference, funding restrictions, and the silencing of scientists. The document recommends that Congress reestablish the Office of Technology Assessment, pass the Scientific Integrity Act, and use confirmation hearings to ensure transparency and adherence to scientific standards.

The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that the Trump administration halted, suppressed, or altered scientific studies to undermine evidence-based decision-making. Examples include the Department of Energy stopping the $100 million Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiment-Tropics and the Department of the Interior halting studies on offshore oil and gas inspections and mountaintop removal coal mining. The document recommends that Congress pass legislation to protect scientists' rights to review public materials, prohibit retaliation for raising integrity concerns, and request a Government Accountability Office report on agency scientific integrity policies.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment argues that Canada's history of missing greenhouse gas reduction targets necessitates a legislated accountability framework. While acknowledging the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change (PCF) as a first step, the authors contend that a proposed $20 million 'Institute' for expert advice is insufficient because it lacks legal permanence and a mandate for government response. They propose five specific requirements: enshrining accountability in law, creating a public expert committee, implementing 5-year carbon budgets, focusing the committee's mandate on assessing government progress, and requiring the government to formally respond to committee reports. The document cites the United Kingdom's 2008 Climate Change Act as a successful model of such transparency and accountability.

The document outlines requirements for the post-2020 biodiversity goals following the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. It advocates for the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women, and youth in the decision-making process. The authors argue that unlimited economic growth is incompatible with environmental preservation and call for the removal of corporate control over public policy and financial instruments. Furthermore, the statement rejects the use of biodiversity offsets and single biodiversity metrics, suggesting that goals must include qualitative aspects and divestment from destructive projects.

The document calls for a post-2020 biodiversity framework that prioritizes planetary boundaries over economic growth and incorporates the leadership of indigenous peoples and local communities. It explicitly rejects the 'voluntary commitments' model used in the Paris Agreement and argues against biodiversity offsets, claiming they are ineffective due to the complexity of ecosystems.

The document emphasizes that National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) are essential tools for EU Member States to transition to net-zero emission societies and meet Paris Agreement commitments. It argues that for these plans to be successful, they must exceed minimum EU ambition levels and be developed through active, multi-stakeholder dialogue involving civil society, academia, and the general public. The author notes a significant lack of transparency and timeliness in the submission of draft plans, with only Sweden having published its draft by August 2018, warning that many other states may treat the process as a "check-the-box" exercise to meet the December 2018 deadline.

ClientEarth argues that the European Commission's Proposal for a Collective Redress Directive is too narrow because it focuses primarily on consumer rights. The organization contends that the directive should be expanded to include 'horizontal collective redress,' allowing citizens harmed by industrial pollution, toxic chemicals, and breaches of labour or anti-discrimination laws to seek compensation. ClientEarth rejects concerns over 'abusive litigation,' noting that no such instances have occurred in EU jurisdictions, and calls for NGOs representing environmental and worker interests to be recognized as qualified entities for bringing representative actions.

Mighty Earth is campaigning for the public to sign a petition urging Yamaha to cease its lobbying efforts that allegedly promote overfishing and threaten the long-term health of U.S. fisheries.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) emphasizes that the IPCC Special Report on 1.5C confirms the necessity of limiting global warming to 1.5C to avoid irreversible impacts on ecosystems and human communities. CIEL argues that the difference between 1.5C and 2C of warming will be measured in human lives and rights, particularly for marginalized populations. To achieve the 1.5C goal, CIEL highlights the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nearly half by 2030 and reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050 through a complete economic transformation away from fossil fuels. Furthermore, CIEL rejects 'overshoot and return' scenarios that rely on hypothetical carbon dioxide removal, labeling such strategies as dangerous and immoral.

The briefing contends that industrial agriculture drives climate change and food insecurity, and that 'climate-smart agriculture' serves as a corporate tool to maintain existing power structures. It proposes agroecology—combining traditional practices and ecological principles—as a superior alternative that increases climate resilience, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and supports food sovereignty for small-scale producers.

The report critiques 'climate-smart agriculture' as a corporate tool to maintain industrial food systems and instead advocates for agroecology. It asserts that agroecological practices increase resilience to extreme weather, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improve the livelihoods of small-scale producers by focusing on local markets and biodiversity.

Friends of the Earth International calls for an immediate transition from a pollutant-heavy energy system to a decentralized, people-led model. The statement rejects 'false solutions' like carbon capture and argues that developed nations must take primary responsibility for emissions reductions and financial transfers to the Global South to ensure a just transition.

Carbon Market Watch calls for the operationalization of rules for Article 6 that prioritize the avoidance of double counting, a clear end date for the transition from Kyoto Protocol mechanisms, and the implementation of robust human rights and social safeguards to prevent the adverse impacts seen under the Clean Development Mechanism.

The Life After Coal Campaign (LAC) argues that new coal-fired power plants in South Africa are irrational, costly, and contrary to international climate obligations. The campaign highlights the severe water externalities of coal, the health risks associated with the proposed Khanyisa power station, and the financial risks of stranded assets as global investment shifts away from thermal coal. LAC advocates for a just transition that prioritizes renewable energy, protects workers' livelihoods, and ensures Eskom's active role in a sustainable energy system.

Carbon Market Watch advocates for a more holistic approach to the EU's sustainable finance framework, arguing that the current 'environmental taxonomy' lacks sufficient granularity and expert input regarding human rights. The letter recommends expanding minimum safeguards beyond ILO conventions to include the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and UN Guiding Principles, establishing a formal group of human rights experts to advise the Technical Expert Group, and committing to the development of a dedicated 'social taxonomy'.

The statement by Friends of the Earth International argues that the European Union is delaying and undermining the UN process to establish a legally binding treaty for transnational corporations. While civil society and many Global South nations support the treaty to end corporate impunity for human rights and environmental abuses, the EU has historically opposed the resolution and recently sought to restrict the intergovernmental working group's mandate. The author advocates for a 'Zero Draft' that includes civil and criminal liability for companies, supply chain transparency, and the primacy of human rights over trade agreements.