Search Climate Insights Directory

The statement 'Reclaim Europe!' argues that the European Union has become a 'project of the elites' that has failed young people, citing high youth unemployment and the dismantling of the welfare state. The authors propose a 'Plan B' for Europe based on degrowth, a Fiscal Union with a Financial Transaction Tax, and the democratization of EU institutions. They advocate for free, inclusive education, a guaranteed basic income, and an open-border policy that welcomes asylum seekers and migrants, while calling for the European Parliament to be granted the right of initiative.

The authors critique the Green Economy (GE) for its anthropocentric, market-based approach that treats nature as 'natural capital' and argues that such a framework is incompatible with the goal of protecting the intrinsic rights of Nature. They contrast the GE's reliance on economic valuation and Payments for Environmental Services (PES) with a bio-centric perspective that recognizes nature's right to exist independently of human utility. The paper highlights Ecuador as a pioneer in constitutionalizing the rights of Nature and proposes practical global measures, including the strict protection of 10% of all ecoregions and a transition to 100% organic food production.

The author contends that Spain's economic crisis stems from a real estate bubble and high private debt rather than irresponsible public spending. They argue that austerity policies are counterproductive, increasing unemployment and public debt. The text proposes a European bank bailout fund funded by banks (similar to the US FDIC) and the use of Eurobonds to protect against interest rate spikes, while suggesting green taxes and estate taxes as alternatives to social cuts.

The authors contend that Germany's economic stability is tied to the Euro and that current rescue measures are insufficient. They propose a two-step approach: immediate ECB intervention and bank supervision, followed by the creation of a democratic financial, economic, and social union featuring common fiscal policies, Eurobonds, and a democratically legitimized EU Commission.

The manifesto argues that the European project is facing a political crisis driven by a 'top-down' approach of elites and technocrats, exacerbated by high youth unemployment and the debt crisis. To counter this, the authors propose a 'European Year of Volunteering for Everyone' to empower civil society and democratize national democracies. This initiative aims to engage citizens in transnational challenges such as climate change and environmental degradation, moving beyond periodic voting toward a proactive, bottom-up constitution for Europe.

The authors argue that the Green Economy approach, as defined by UNEP, fails to protect biodiversity because it treats nature as 'Natural Capital' and relies on market-based tools like Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES). They propose a shift toward a biocentric perspective that recognizes the intrinsic value and legal rights of nature, independent of human utility. The paper highlights Ecuador as a pioneer in constitutional recognition of nature's rights and suggests practical global targets, including the strict protection of 10% of the world's eco-regions and a transition to 100% organic production.

The document argues for a coordinated EU response to the financial crisis, combining fiscal discipline and structural reform with financial regulation and a strategic shift toward green growth. It advocates for defending the euro, implementing a financial transaction tax, increasing corporate tax transparency, and expanding the mandate of the European Central Bank to prevent state bankruptcies. Finally, it asserts that the EU should leverage innovation in energy efficiency and renewable energies to drive economic growth and address climate change.

The author analyzes the collapse of the liberal-productivist model, which combined neoliberal deregulation with a drive for continuous material growth. This model failed due to a convergence of financial debt crises and ecological constraints, specifically the 'energy-climate crisis' and food price volatility. The author proposes a 'Green Deal' characterized by a shift toward labor-intensive green investments, a reduction in working hours, and a global cooperative framework for greenhouse gas (GHG) quotas. To fund this transition, the document suggests the 'monetization of debts'—canceling or rescheduling old debts while directing new credit toward green conversion. The text warns that without a democratic, cooperative transition, the world risks repeating the 1930s' slide into fascism or totalitarianism.

The author characterizes the current global crisis as the collapse of a 'liberal-productivist' model, which combined neoliberal deregulation with a productivist drive that ignored ecological limits. This model failed due to a combination of financial instability (a 'debt economy'), extreme revenue inequality, and a 'climate-energy crisis' where the demand for staple commodities like food and energy crowded out durable goods. The author argues that traditional Keynesian solutions are insufficient because they would accelerate climate change, while 'green-washing' ignores the social inequalities at the root of the crisis. A proposed 'Green Deal' would involve a global redistribution of productivity—prioritizing the reduction of labor time over material consumption—and a shift toward a labor-intensive technological paradigm focused on public transportation and care services. Financing this transition would require the 'monetization of debts' and the creation of new credit strictly oriented toward green investments. The author warns that without a coordinated, democratic transition, the world risks a repeat of the 1930s, where economic desperation led to the rise of fascism and Stalinism.

The Greens in the Bundestag and European Parliament call for a transition from a currency union to a comprehensive economic union to resolve the Eurocrisis. They argue that the Treaty of Lisbon and the 'new fiscal policy pact' are insufficient because they rely on intergovernmental cooperation rather than democratically legitimised EU institutions. The document proposes a 'Green Convention on the Future of the European Union' to debate treaty amendments, including the creation of a European Economic and Finance Minister, a European financial transaction tax, and a 'social progress clause' to protect workers' rights. The authors advocate for a 'Green New Deal' to ensure sustainable and socially equitable growth, alongside greater harmonisation of tax systems to prevent tax avoidance and dangerous competition.

The German Greens propose a Green New Deal to transition Germany toward a low-carbon, resource-efficient economy. The plan rests on three pillars: re-regulating financial markets to end speculation, implementing green industrial policies to promote renewables and efficiency, and ensuring social justice through a 'new social balance' and fair wealth distribution. The authors argue that Germany's industrial success depends on this transformation and that it must be coordinated at the EU level to be effective.

The briefing argues that the G20 and Rio+20 summits lack concrete deliverables and proposes a 'green growth guarantee' to provide developing countries with indicators, planning support, financial engagement, and peer review. The author highlights the growth of catalyst funds leveraging private investment and the need for a unified approach to sustainable development planning to avoid duplicating efforts across different international frameworks.

The document argues that the transition to a low-carbon economy requires massive annual investments—estimated at $1 trillion to $1.3 trillion—that must come primarily from the private sector's $75 trillion in institutional assets. It identifies a gap between the high capital expenditure needs of climate-resilient infrastructure and the risk appetite of bond investors, who demand large-scale, investment-grade deals. To bridge this, the author proposes aggregating small projects into larger offerings, using public sector risk-sharing (such as guarantees and regulatory support), and establishing standardized screening tools like the Climate Bonds Standards. The plan also calls for 'greening' development banks, providing tax incentives, and creating a 'green growth' economic narrative to overcome political inertia and the influence of the fossil fuel lobby.

The document details the outcomes of a September 2011 workshop designed to scope the Arctic Resilience Report (ARR). It defines resilience as the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganise while retaining its identity, and proposes a methodology to identify 'tipping points'—abrupt and potentially irreversible changes in social-ecological systems. The report outlines a preliminary assessment of Arctic drivers (such as climate change and resource demand), sources of general resilience (including biodiversity and governance), and potential regime shifts across local, regional, and pan-arctic scales. It concludes with a formal proposal to the Arctic Council to implement the ARR project between 2012 and 2015, emphasizing the integration of indigenous knowledge and the need for policy-relevant outputs.

The briefing proposes that the US congressional super committee avoid austerity cuts to social services and environmental enforcement by targeting "environmentally harmful spending" and generating revenue through a carbon tax and other levies. It highlights the "Green Scissors 2011" report, which identifies up to $380 billion in potential savings over five years from subsidies to the oil, gas, coal, nuclear, and biofuels industries. Additionally, the authors suggest a carbon tax could generate significant revenue, citing a proposal that could have yielded $600 billion over 10 years, alongside potential taxes on sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions and a currency transaction levy.

The briefing argues that traditional utility rebate programs, which focus on single-technology upgrades, yield only 1 to 5 percent whole-building savings. In contrast, a 'deep retrofit' approach—optimizing the building as a whole—can achieve 30 to 50 percent savings. To scale this, the authors propose the 'Deep Energy Efficiency Pays' (DEEP) program, which provides an additional incentive for projects that meet a specific energy savings threshold (e.g., 30 percent). This incentive is designed to 'tip' the economics of projects that would otherwise be financially unviable for building owners. The document highlights the Empire State Building as a successful example of a deep retrofit and discusses existing programs in California and Connecticut as precursors to this model.

The paper argues that developing countries face a dual burden of climate mitigation and adaptation alongside existing development challenges, often lacking the institutional capacity to harness necessary technologies. It proposes Climate Innovation Centers (CICs) as facilitators and coordinators that bridge the gap between basic research and full commercialization. CICs are designed to operate as 'system operators' or 'glue' for the innovation ecosystem, partnering with governments, firms, and financial institutions to overcome 'valleys of death' in financing and technical development. The author suggests that CIC design must be tailored to a country's specific economic level and population size, and aligns this model with the UNFCCC's Climate Technology Center and Network established under the Cancun Decision.

The document argues that protecting critical biodiversity and hydrological areas from mining is in the national interest and essential for climate change mitigation and adaptation. It proposes a list of areas for total prohibition and a set of procedural restrictions for other sensitive zones to improve decision-making and environmental oversight.

The report argues that significant emissions reductions in Japan's steel sector require breakthrough technologies or CCS, as current efficiency is already high. It proposes two SAAM variants: one based on a fully-resourced research, development, diffusion and deployment (RDD&D) plan, and another based on regulating CO2 limits for plants. The analysis suggests that the sector's financial resources could support a significant scale-up of RDD&D, though the high cost of implementing CCS remains a major hurdle. The report also reviews the role of the Nippon Keidanren's voluntary plans and international partnerships like the Asia-Pacific Partnership (APP) and the World Steel Association (WSA).

The document examines the risk of climate negotiations losing credibility due to complexity and economic uncertainty. It proposes a two-stage approach: a flexible transitional system (2013–2020) with varied commitments, followed by a 'hard shell' long-term regime (2020–2035) aligned with 2050 goals. This strategy aims to preserve the process's essence while integrating sustainable development goals from Rio+20 and data from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report.