Search Climate Insights Directory

The report finds that while most US states meet the minimum legal requirements for Title V air permitting notices, there are substantial gaps in transparency, accessibility, and the actual influence of public input on final decisions. It highlights that many public notices are written at a college reading level and lack plain language, and that few agencies transparently report how public comments shape permit outcomes. The analysis suggests that states with specific environmental justice or cumulative impacts laws tend to have better engagement practices. It recommends that agencies adopt plain language, provide multilingual resources, and establish clear mechanisms for reporting how community input affects regulatory decisions.

The document discusses the devastating impact of peatland fires in Indonesia, exacerbated by El Niño and agribusiness drainage, and supports President Subianto Prabowo's proposal to classify these acts as "ecological terrorism."

Ohio is experiencing an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme precipitation, flooding, heat, and drought, with natural disaster costs reaching $2 to $5 billion in the first half of 2026. These hazards are compounded by aging infrastructure, including high-hazard dams and levees, and a legacy of industrial pollution from Superfund sites. The state's energy grid is under strain from extreme heat and surging demand from over 200 data centers, while state policy continues to favor fossil fuels and obstruct renewable energy development. Key military assets, such as Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, face significant flood and wildfire risks. While Ohio lacks a comprehensive statewide climate governance framework, some progress has been made through municipal adaptation plans and significant support from federal agencies like NOAA, FEMA, and the EPA.

The document analyzes the 2026 State of the European Union address, emphasizing that while the EU has made progress in clean electricity, it now faces a critical 'delivery' phase. It argues for a diverse energy mix including clean firm power, the acceleration of grid expansion to resolve connection bottlenecks, and the use of the Industrial Decarbonisation Bank to move projects to final investment decisions. Additionally, it stresses the importance of maintaining strong methane regulations and creating lead markets for low-carbon products to ensure industrial competitiveness and energy security.

The document highlights findings from the 2026 federal assessment of Canada's changing climate, warning that Canada will be nearly 3 C warmer over the next two decades regardless of future emissions. It emphasizes that while some warming is unavoidable, failing to cut global emissions could lead to 5 C of warming by 2100, causing the near-total disappearance of glaciers and severe permafrost thaw. The author calls for immediate investment in infrastructure adaptation—noting that every dollar spent now avoids up to $15 in losses—and a swifter national transition to clean power to avoid uncontrollable devastation.

The report argues that the IMF's 'climate turn' is contradictory, as its conventional lending programmes (Upper Credit Tranche) often prioritize fiscal consolidation and extractive industries, undermining the climate goals of the Resilience and Sustainability Facility (RSF). Through case studies in Ecuador, Egypt, the DRC, Tanzania, and Pakistan, the document demonstrates how IMF-mandated expenditure compression and reliance on fossil fuel exports create structural climate vulnerabilities. Key findings indicate that while the IMF has improved its climate analysis, this does not translate into programme design, which continues to favor private investment and cost recovery over the public investment needed for a just transition.

The author contends that weakening the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) would undermine the transition to an electric economy by removing the financial incentive for companies to shift from fossil fuels to clean electricity. While the Electrification Action Plan provides a target of 46% electrification by 2040, the author asserts that a strong carbon price is required to justify long-term investments in cleaner production and infrastructure. The text highlights a divide within the business community, noting that while some companies lobby for lower carbon costs, others—including SAP, Volvo Cars, and Schneider Electric—advocate for clear rules and faster electrification to reduce exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets.

The authors contend that while generative AI is useful for staff work, its use in war colleges can lead to 'cognitive submission,' where officers outsource the intellectual struggle necessary to develop strategic judgment. They argue that PME is a 'boot camp for the brain' where the process of writing and debating is the primary mechanism for cognitive development. The document warns that AI can exacerbate military biases toward overconfidence and technology, potentially homogenizing thought and eroding critical thinking. To mitigate this, the authors propose 'governance by design,' using AI as a thought partner to surface counterarguments and test assumptions rather than as a tool to produce finished analysis or define problems.

The document criticizes Nippon Steel and Cleveland-Cliffs for investing in coal-fired infrastructure despite public commitments to green steel. It highlights a $350 million renovation of a blast furnace at Gary Works by Nippon Steel and the refurbishment of a 73-year-old furnace by Cleveland-Cliffs in Middletown, Ohio, despite the latter receiving a $500 million Inflation Reduction Act grant for decarbonization. The author suggests that automotive companies and international markets, particularly in Europe, should use their purchasing power to pressure steelmakers to transition away from coal.

The policy brief examines the 'cross-chain' risks in the carbon capture and storage (CCS) value chain, where delays in transport or storage infrastructure leave industrial emitters facing a 'double burden': the cost of capture equipment and continued EU ETS payments for uncaptured emissions. It contrasts the EU's current funding gaps with the UK's 'CCS business models' and suggests the EU utilize ETS revenues or the proposed Industrial Decarbonisation Bank to provide financial safeguards during infrastructure outages.

The report criticizes the FAO for promoting a target of 75% growth in 'sustainable aquaculture' by 2040 without distinguishing between low-impact and feed-intensive production systems. Modelling suggests that if current trends continue, demand for wild fish could rise by 85–88%, potentially diverting nutritious fish from vulnerable populations in Africa and Asia. The document highlights a 'policy drift' in the GSA, where earlier safeguards regarding nutrition and competition between aquafeed and human food were removed, allegedly influenced by the aquaculture industry and Norway. It concludes that FAO should prioritize non-fed, low-trophic aquatic foods and eliminate edible wild fish from aquafeeds to align with its founding mandate.

The report identifies a 'planning gap' in deregulated U.S. power markets where short-term wholesale price signals and Clean Electricity Standards (CES) fail to incentivize long-lead time, capital-intensive technologies like nuclear, geothermal, and long-duration energy storage. To address this, the authors propose a 'hybrid market' approach called state-led planning, which consists of three core components: system needs assessments, technology development roadmaps, and state-led procurement. This framework allows states to provide the long-term revenue certainty required by investors while maintaining the operational efficiencies of competitive wholesale markets. The report highlights Illinois's Clean and Reliable Grid Affordability Act as a primary example of this approach in practice and discusses the role of FERC Order 1920 in improving regional transmission planning.

The document asserts that climate change is a systemic financial risk that threatens the global economy and the living conditions of beneficiaries, thereby making climate action an integral part of an asset owner's fiduciary duty. It advocates for a 'systemic approach' that prioritizes long-term stability over short-term gains, urging asset owners to halt capital allocation to fossil fuel expansion, engage aggressively with portfolio companies, influence asset managers, and advocate for ambitious public policies. The report highlights that current risk models often underestimate the potential for catastrophic economic losses, which could reach 50% of global GDP by the end of the century.

The report models a hypothetical national EPR framework in the U.S. to evaluate the economic benefits of harmonization over fragmented state-level policies. Key findings indicate that such a framework could reduce municipal waste management costs by 49%–53%, generate $111 billion in economic value added over 10 years, and significantly lower producer compliance costs. The analysis also highlights job creation in recycling infrastructure and innovation, particularly in the food and beverage sector, and examines the potential for improved domestic rPET markets and rural recycling access.

Recent European heatwaves have forced nuclear plants in France, Romania, and Hungary to reduce output or shut down due to high river temperatures and low water levels, which trigger environmental protections for aquatic ecosystems. While these disruptions are environmental operating constraints rather than safety failures, they highlight the need for climate-resilient design. Adaptation options include transitioning to indirect or dry cooling systems, utilizing deeper seawater for coastal plants, and deploying advanced reactors or small modular reactors that require less water. The document emphasizes that these challenges are shared by other thermal power plants and that future energy planning must incorporate projected climate conditions into siting and design.

The report argues that the period from 2026 to 2028 is a critical window to shape global digital governance before norms become entrenched. It focuses on the operationalisation of the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and the WSIS+20 outcome document, urging a shift toward 'digital justice' to address structural inequalities, 'compute deserts' in Africa and the Pacific, and the environmental costs of AI. The author outlines specific advocacy pathways within the UN General Assembly, OHCHR, ITU, and UNESCO, while highlighting the unique role of faith-based organisations as trusted intermediaries in restricted civic spaces. It also assesses regional dynamics across Africa, Europe, Latin America, Asia Pacific, the Caribbean, and the MENA region, noting the tension between security-driven policies and human rights.

Carbon Market Watch asserts that free allowances in the EU ETS have failed to drive decarbonisation, instead allowing heavy industry to generate profits while avoiding pollution costs. The organization criticizes the European Commission's revision proposal for extending free allocations and calls for a full phase-out by 2034 for CBAM sectors and a plan for all other sectors, insisting that any remaining subsidies be tied to proven investments in zero-carbon transformation and social safeguards.

The document warns that a record-breaking El Niño event is being leveraged by disinformation campaigns to attribute extreme weather to natural cycles rather than fossil fuel emissions. It highlights the resulting food insecurity risks in Central America, Southern Africa, and South Asia, while arguing that the most effective defense against climate denial is not fact-checking, but the support of community-led information networks in places like Colombia, Nepal, and Nigeria.

Reclaim Finance criticizes the Council of the European Union for proposing that "transition" funds under the SFDR be available to oil and gas companies, provided they meet a 20% EU Taxonomy capex threshold and set Scope 1 and 2 targets. The author contends this position, influenced by lobbying from entities like TotalEnergies and the French government, ignores Scope 3 emissions and allows continued fossil fuel expansion. The document calls on the European Parliament to exclude companies developing new oil and gas projects from such funds to ensure the credibility of sustainable finance.

Reclaim Finance criticizes the EU Council's June 2026 position on the SFDR, which would allow fossil fuel developers to access "transition" funds based on a 20% capex alignment with the EU taxonomy and scope 1 and 2 decarbonization targets. The author contends this approach, influenced by oil and gas lobbying—specifically TotalEnergies and the French government—ignores scope 3 emissions and risks legitimizing greenwashing. The document calls on the European Parliament to exclude companies developing new oil and gas projects from such funds during its September 2026 deliberations.