Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that the increasing use of manufactured nanomaterials (MNMs) in consumer and industrial products creates significant risks in the waste stream due to unknown toxicity and difficulties in characterization. It demands that governments and companies implement extended producer responsibility, restrict the transboundary movement of MNM waste, and establish public registries of nano-products, particularly within the European Union, to ensure safe recycling and disposal.

The document critiques Export Credit Agencies (ECAs) for prioritizing energy-intensive exports over renewable energy and for lacking the environmental and social safeguards common in multilateral development banks. It highlights the role of G7 countries in financing energy-intensive projects and notes that between 1994 and 1999, ECAs supported only US$2 billion in renewable energy. The brief calls for the adoption of binding guidelines, transparent disclosure policies, and a target of at least 20% for renewable energy and energy efficiency in ECA portfolios by 2006.

The document argues that the increasing use of manufactured nanomaterials (MNMs) in consumer, industrial, and medical products is leading to their proliferation in waste streams, posing risks to human health and the environment that are not yet fully understood. Signatories demand that governments and companies implement extended producer responsibility, restrict the transboundary movement of MNM waste, and establish a public registry of nano-products in Europe to ensure transparency. The statement also advocates for the development of safe recycling technologies and the integration of waste prevention into publicly funded nanotechnology research to support a safe circular economy.

The document argues that the IFC's proposed Approach to Responsible Exit fails to establish remedial responsibilities for the IFC or the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), effectively allowing the institutions to exit projects without addressing harms caused by their investments. The authors contend that remedy should be a prerequisite for exit, as divestment removes the financial leverage necessary to drive corrective action. They propose four core principles: ensuring exits do not undermine ongoing Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) processes, conducting pre-divestment due diligence verified by communities, implementing meaningful consultation at least 12 months prior to divestment, and establishing protocols to prevent and manage reprisals against affected populations. The submission includes a table of projects in China, Egypt, Chile, Colombia, Nicaragua, and elsewhere where the IFC allegedly exited without providing remedy for documented harms such as forced labor, environmental damage, and human rights violations.

The document outlines seven ways the TTIP could degrade chemical safety standards, including the risk of 'downward harmonization' of regulations, the erosion of EU member states' regulatory authority, and the potential for investor-state dispute settlements to penalize governments for implementing health and environmental laws.

The document outlines seven ways the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) could negatively impact chemical regulation, specifically warning that it may lead to 'harmonization “downward,”' slowing the implementation of protective EU laws, and eroding the regulatory authority of EU Member States. It highlights risks such as reduced transparency regarding hazardous chemicals, the potential for foreign investors to sue governments over public health laws via secretive arbitration panels, and the possible increase in fracking due to the undermining of precautionary moratoria. Finally, it asserts that TTIP could slow global progress on managing international chemical risks, particularly in relation to Asian trading partners.

The document outlines seven reasons why the Transatlantic Investment and Partnership Agreement (TTIP/TAFTA) could undermine EU chemical safety regulations, potentially leading to a 'race to the bottom' in environmental and health standards. It warns that the agreement could hinder the adoption of stricter national laws, limit access to information on hazardous substances, and allow foreign investors to sue governments over public health regulations through secret arbitration panels, similar to mechanisms used in NAFTA.

The document outlines seven ways the TTIP trade negotiations could negatively impact chemical regulation, including the risk of 'downward' harmonization of standards, the erosion of US state-level regulatory authority, and the potential to increase fracking for natural gas. It highlights the disparity between the weak US federal chemical management system and the stronger EU policies, warning that TTIP could slow global progress on toxic chemicals and limit access to hazard information.

The document asserts that the World Health Organization (WHO) has a mandate to evaluate how intellectual property provisions in bilateral and regional free trade agreements (FTAs) impact public health. It warns that these agreements, often between industrialized economies and developing nations, frequently impose 'TRIPS-plus' standards that restrict access to affordable medicines and undermine the 2005 Amendment to the TRIPS Agreement and the Doha Declaration. The author contends that the WHO should be extensively consulted on these provisions to ensure that health outcomes remain a priority in trade policy.

Clean Creatives calls on Netflix to implement fossil-free procurement criteria for its agencies and urges Dentsu, which recently secured a $190 million partnership with Netflix, to offramp all fossil fuel clients.

Over 400 scientists have called on Hill+Knowlton Strategies and its parent company WPP plc to drop fossil fuel clients, arguing that representing companies like Saudi Aramco and ExxonMobil is incompatible with the agency's role in leading public communications for the COP27 UN climate talks. The signatories claim the agency has enabled disinformation campaigns and that its clients' plans to increase production contradict the goals of the UNFCCC.

The report presents the 2024 South African F-List, detailing 42 contracts between local agencies and fossil fuel clients, and highlights the reputational risks of such partnerships. It critiques the role of PR in masking the environmental and health impacts of companies like Sasol and TotalEnergies, while calling for industry awards like The Loeries to stop rewarding fossil fuel advertising.

A coalition of 226 scientists, financial professionals, and civil society organizations argues that including fossil gas in the EU Taxonomy contradicts climate science and risks turning the framework into a greenwashing tool. The authors highlight the high climate impact of methane leaks and assert that such a move would undermine the EU's global climate leadership and the goals of the Green Deal.

The document argues that current EU legislation on pesticide statistics is inadequate for assessing environmental and health risks. The signatories call for the reform to mandate annual data collection from professional users' records, including biocidal and veterinary medicinal products, and for the proactive publication of this data by active substance, product, and at a regional level to align with the Aarhus Directive and public interest needs.

A coalition of NGOs argues that reintroducing subsidies for fleet renewal and vessel modernisation would increase overcapacity and overfishing, contradicting the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and international commitments like UN SDG 14. The authors contend that capacity ceilings based on tonnage and power are inadequate measures of fishing ability and that engine modernisation is difficult to control due to under-declaration of power. They propose redirecting funds toward crew safety training, research into selective fishing gear, and stock recovery, noting that the majority of small-scale fishers benefit more from recovered stocks than from vessel subsidies.

The document identifies significant gaps in the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), noting that overfishing persists due to catch limits exceeding scientific advice and weak compliance with the landing obligation. It highlights the under-utilization of the European Maritime Fisheries Fund (EMFF) for monitoring and selective fishing, and warns against the reintroduction of harmful subsidies. The authors urge EU decision-makers to align conservation measures with environmental directives and adopt robust monitoring to protect marine ecosystems and fish populations.

A coalition of 28 European organisations calls for a legislative reform of EU agriculture statistics to eliminate 'blind spots' in agro-chemical data. The letter argues that current Eurostat data is incomplete and too aggregated to effectively monitor the sustainable use of pesticides or protect public health and the environment. The authors propose four key improvements: the systematic electronic collection of farmers' pesticide records, the inclusion of biocides and veterinary products in data collection, the publication of data at the Local Administrative Unit level, and unrestricted access to raw data for public authorities.

The document criticizes the European Commission's perceived imbalance in engagement, noting that corporate representatives and business associations account for 69% of meetings with Commissioners' cabinet members, compared to 16% for NGOs. It argues that the 'Antwerp Declaration' serves as a roadmap for dismantling climate and social protections in favor of industrial competitiveness. The authors highlight that European firms in energy transition sectors distributed €1.6 trillion to shareholders between 2010 and 2023, suggesting that public subsidies for these industries are unnecessary. The letter demands a shift toward evidence-based lawmaking that prioritizes the 'Polluter Pays Principle' and protects citizens from 'forever chemicals (PFAS)' and pesticide pollution.

The document details how fossil fuels cause systemic health damage across their entire value chain, affecting individuals from fetal development through old age. It highlights the disproportionate burden on marginalized communities in 'sacrifice zones' and calls for the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, the cessation of new exploration, and the internalisation of health costs through the 'polluter pays' principle to facilitate a just energy transition.

A statement from global health leaders calling for the total elimination of fossil fuels to address the root cause of the climate crisis and improve public health outcomes. The authors argue that transitioning to renewable energy will reduce premature deaths from air pollution, lower healthcare costs, and protect ecosystems, while warning against 'false solutions' like carbon capture and storage (CCS). They demand a just energy transition, the redirection of fossil fuel subsidies toward health and climate solutions, and the exclusion of fossil fuel industry lobbyists from climate negotiations.