Search Climate Insights Directory

The briefing argues that Japan can mitigate its high reliance on energy imports—currently 99.7% for oil, 97.7% for LNG, and 99.6% for coal—by rapidly expanding domestic renewables and upgrading its national grid. It recommends implementing a JPY 7 trillion 'Master Plan' for interregional transmission to connect resources in Hokkaido and Kyushu to Tokyo. Internationally, the document urges Japan to lead ASEAN countries in transition and disaster resilience while ensuring its own transition measures remain science-based. It specifically warns against the use of LNG as a transition fuel due to methane leakage, noting one study found the GHG footprint of US LNG is 33% greater than coal using GWP20. Finally, it proposes leveraging Japan's financial sector and the GX Plan to make Tokyo a global hub for transition finance through supportive fund management rules and alignment with international standards.

The report outlines 18 recommendations from an Independent Technical Advisory Group (ITAG) for creating a sustainable finance taxonomy in Aotearoa New Zealand. Key proposals include a three-tiered governance structure, the adoption of the ANZSIC classification system, and a focus on five priority sectors: Agriculture, Forestry & Fishery, Transport, Construction & Real Estate, Energy, and Industrial Manufacturing. The framework emphasizes interoperability with international standards, particularly the Australian Taxonomy, and the integration of iwi/Māori knowledge and rights. It suggests a voluntary initial application phase and the inclusion of a 'transition' category, potentially using a traffic light system to label activities moving toward a 1.5-degree pathway.

ClientEarth calls for a systemic legal and economic transformation of the EU to address climate, biodiversity, and pollution crises. Key proposals include appointing a Vice-President of the European Commission for People and the Environment, ending all public subsidies for fossil fuels, and adopting a legally binding framework for sustainable food systems. The document emphasizes the need for increased transparency in legislative processes, better access to justice for civil society in 21 of 27 member states, and the recognition of the right to a healthy environment.

ClientEarth proposes a series of legislative reforms for the UK to accelerate its transition to net zero by 2050 and protect biodiversity. Key recommendations include the introduction of an Environmental Rights Bill to comply with the Aarhus Convention, the implementation of mandatory corporate transition plans, and a ban on fossil fuel advertising and carbon offsetting. The document also calls for the UK to withdraw from the Energy Charter Treaty, accelerate fine particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution reduction targets to 2030, and ensure 30% of land and sea are effectively protected by 2030. Additionally, it urges the government to address the 'Dieselgate' scandal by supporting affected consumers and funding a clean-up fund.

The IPIE argues that AI audits are the primary mechanism to operationalize governance, moving beyond simple transparency to ensure human rights compliance and the fair distribution of AI benefits. It proposes a global audit framework based on universal parameters—including fairness, transparency, and technical robustness—and offers the IPIE's scientific expertise to help the UN develop these international standards and research functions.

The IPIE submission argues for the reduction of bureaucratic barriers and the strengthening of researcher rights under the Digital Services Act's data access framework. Based on a survey of scientific affiliates, the document identifies risks such as political capture of Digital Services Coordinators (DSCs), lack of transparency in data inventories, and restrictive interpretations of 'other sources' of data. Key recommendations include the implementation of a fast-track process for time-sensitive data, mandatory researcher participation in dispute settlements, and the requirement for DSCs to use English as a mandatory communication language to ensure cross-border scientific coordination.

The International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE) recommends amending the European Commission's draft qualitative template for DSA transparency reports to better capture risk mitigation data. The IPIE argues that content moderation is fundamentally a risk mitigation measure and that transparency reports should explicitly include information on content labelling, corrective information, and the specific parameters of automated moderation tools. This would bridge the gap between general transparency obligations (Articles 15 and 42) and the systemic risk assessment requirements (Articles 34 and 35) for very large online platforms and search engines, facilitating faster access to data for scientific researchers.

The International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE) submits recommendations to the OECD to strengthen information integrity. Key proposals include requiring online platforms to grant independent researchers access to data and systems, promoting innovative funding for independent media to ensure diversity of ownership, and implementing more stringent industry standards for the provenance of generative AI content. The IPIE also suggests that governments take enforcement actions and impose sanctions when disinformation poses significant risks to human rights and democratic processes, while advising the removal of language focusing on 'malicious intent' due to the difficulty of proof.

The International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE) proposes a global framework for AI auditing to address the lack of consistent standards and the risk of AI perpetuating biases and environmental harm. The framework outlines seven key characteristics for effective audits: scope, auditor role, stakeholder engagement, context-adapted criteria, evidence requirements, methodology, and post-audit activities. It emphasizes the need for auditor independence, transparency of results, and the inclusion of marginalized communities, particularly those in the 'majority world', to mitigate systemic harms and protect human rights.

The International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE) outlines a global AI auditing framework designed to address the lack of common standards and the tendency of current audits to overlook global disparities. The framework is built on seven core characteristics: audit scope, auditor role, stakeholder engagement, context-adapted criteria, evidence requirements, auditing methodologies, and post-audit activities. It emphasizes the need for independent auditors with access to comprehensive evidence and the inclusion of marginalized communities to prevent human rights violations and environmental degradation.

The International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE) recommends a comprehensive global AI auditing system to address the risks of bias, inequality, and environmental harm. The proposed framework emphasizes the need for independent auditors, transparent results, and a context-sensitive approach that includes diverse stakeholders and considers global impacts, particularly on marginalized communities.

The International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE) presents a global framework for AI auditing designed to mitigate systemic harms, including bias, inequality, and environmental damage. The framework outlines seven key features: audit scope, the auditor's role, stakeholder engagement, context-specific criteria, evidence requirements, auditing methodologies, and post-audit activities. It emphasizes the need for auditor independence, public transparency of results, and the inclusion of marginalized communities, particularly in the Global South, to address disproportionate impacts of AI technologies.

The International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE) presents a global AI auditing framework designed to address the lack of uniform standards and the failure of current audits to account for global inequalities. The framework consists of seven key characteristics: audit scope, auditor role, stakeholder engagement, context-dependent criteria, evidence requirements, methodology, and post-audit measures. It emphasizes the need for auditor independence, transparent results, and the inclusion of marginalized communities to prevent AI from perpetuating biases, labor exploitation, and environmental degradation.

The International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE) presents a global AI auditing framework designed to address the lack of common standards and the failure of current audits to account for global, disparate impacts. The framework outlines seven key features: audit scope, auditor roles, stakeholder engagement, context-specific criteria, evidence requirements, auditing methodologies, and post-audit activities. It emphasizes the need for auditor independence, transparent results, and the inclusion of environmental and labor impact assessments to protect marginalized communities and the collective well-being.

The International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE) presents a policy brief outlining a Global AI Auditing Framework (SR2024.3). The framework addresses the inadequacy of current AI auditing practices, which often lack independent auditors and fail to account for global impacts. It proposes a seven-component system covering audit scope, auditor roles, stakeholder engagement, criteria, evidence requirements, methodology, and post-audit activities. The goal is to create a standardized approach to identify AI-driven biases, labor exploitation, and environmental harms, particularly those affecting marginalized communities globally.

The document outlines a global framework for AI auditing developed by the International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE). It argues that current auditing practices lack independence and fail to account for global inequalities, particularly regarding human rights and environmental degradation. The proposed framework consists of seven key characteristics: audit scope, auditor roles, stakeholder engagement, context-adapted standards, evidence requirements, auditing methods, and post-audit activities. It emphasizes the need for transparent, multi-stakeholder driven audits that can identify systemic harms such as bias and labor exploitation.

The report outlines the activities of the Climate Story Lab Nordic 2023/2024, which supported nine climate films to develop impact strategies and narratives. It argues that storytelling is a critical infrastructure for the energy transition, capable of moving beyond scientific facts to address the emotional and existential dimensions of the climate crisis. The document provides a handbook of essays from scientists, filmmakers, and practitioners, emphasizing the need to reach the 'moveable middle' of the population and the importance of centering climate justice and local contexts in narratives. It concludes by calling for a more robust 'storytelling ecosystem' that supports independent filmmakers and challenges the influence of fossil fuel industry narratives.

The report outlines four cross-cutting recommendations for the Loss and Damage Fund: adopting participatory decision-making, creating direct access mechanisms for local actors, implementing 'learning-by-doing' capacity building, and adopting holistic approaches that prioritize human rights and non-economic losses. It identifies significant barriers to climate finance, including complex access procedures and limited local capacity, and advocates for a fund design that empowers marginalized groups and ensures rapid, flexible disbursement.

The report outlines a framework for the Loss and Damage Fund's design, emphasizing the need for diversified funding sources, simplified access for marginalized communities, and a governance structure that prioritizes grants and local leadership. It argues for a comprehensive approach that complements existing humanitarian and development aid rather than creating rigid new categories.

The report argues for a participatory, inclusive, and direct-access approach to the Loss and Damage Fund to ensure it reaches the most vulnerable communities. It recommends creating direct access windows for local actors to bypass slow national processes, adopting 'learning by doing' through small pilot projects to build institutional capacity, and expanding the scope of funding to include non-economic losses and human rights-based reparations.