Search Climate Insights Directory

In a letter dated 10 March 2022, Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) acknowledges the American Geophysical Union's (AGU) commitment to fossil fuel divestment and net carbon neutrality but requests specific details on the timeline, exclusion strategies, measurement methods, and transparency of these investments. SGR calls on the AGU to redirect investments toward climate mitigation technologies, report its portfolio's carbon footprint, sever ties with corporations guilty of major malpractice, and sign the Pledge to Net Zero. The letter suggests a completion deadline of mid-2023 and references the 'Science Oath for the Climate' and the impact of COP26 and legal rulings against Shell as drivers for improved climate governance.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) has called on the American Meteorological Society (AMS) to address concerns regarding its lack of transparency and potential financial ties to the fossil fuel and arms industries. SGR requests that the AMS disclose investments over $5,000, phase out ties to companies not aligned with the 2°C Paris Agreement goal, and adopt a formal environmental policy. The letter highlights a growing trend of divestment among other scientific bodies, such as the American Geophysical Union and the Royal Meteorological Society, as well as numerous universities in the US and UK.

SGR calls on the American Physical Society to disclose investments over $5,000, phase out ties to companies not aligned with the 2°C Paris Agreement goal, and adopt a formal environmental policy. The letter highlights a trend of divestment among other professional bodies and universities in the US and UK.

SGR has called on the American Statistical Association (ASA) to address a lack of transparency regarding its investments and potential financial ties to the arms and fossil fuel industries. The organization demands that the ASA phase out investments in companies not aligned with the 2C Paris Agreement goal, adopt a formal environmental policy, and report the carbon footprint of its investment portfolio. SGR cites examples of other professional bodies and universities in the US and UK that have already divested from fossil fuels as a benchmark for responsible governance.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) has written to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) expressing concerns over its lack of transparency regarding investments and potential financial ties to the arms and fossil fuel sectors. SGR calls on ASCE to disclose investments over $5,000, phase out ties to companies not aligned with the 2C Paris Agreement goal, and adopt an environmental policy. The letter highlights a growing trend of divestment among other professional bodies, universities, and scientific organizations in the US and UK as a benchmark for responsible climate governance.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) has called on the Geological Society of America (GSA) to reform its investment practices, citing a lack of transparency and potential financial ties to the fossil fuel and arms industries. SGR demands that the GSA disclose investments over $5,000, phase out ties to companies not aligned with the 2°C Paris Agreement goal, and redirect funds toward climate mitigation technologies. The letter highlights a growing trend of divestment among other professional bodies, such as the American Geophysical Union, and various universities in the US and UK.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) has called on the Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE) to reform its financial practices, citing a lack of transparency and continued ties to fossil fuel and arms industries. SGR demands that IChemE disclose investments over £3,500, phase out ties to companies not aligned with the 2°C Paris Agreement goal, and adopt fossil fuel-free indexes. The letter highlights a broader trend of divestment among other professional bodies, universities, and medical organisations in the UK and US as a benchmark for responsible climate governance.

The report examines the role of carbon-free energy in the PJM market and evaluates two proposed market designs—the Forward Clean Energy Market and the Integrated Clean Capacity Market—to improve the integration of clean resources. It argues that accurately accounting for the capacity value of clean energy reduces costs and emissions, and suggests that a regional, standardized clean energy procurement process could accelerate the retirement of fossil assets and the deployment of clean energy.

The US produces a disproportionate amount of global solid waste and recycles only 9% of its plastic. To combat this, the document advocates for policies that protect afflicted communities, shift recycling costs to producers via Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), and support a globally binding UN treaty on plastic pollution.

CAPE supports the federal government's proposal to ban specific single-use plastics, emphasizing that plastic pollution is a human health crisis as well as an ecological one. The organization highlights health risks including respiratory illness and cancer for fenceline communities and plastics workers, as well as the presence of microplastics in infants. CAPE recommends bringing regulations into force by the end of 2022, removing export exemptions, and expanding the list of banned items to include drink cups, cigarette filters, and products containing additives like PFAS and bisphenols.

The submission contends that ISDS mechanisms allow foreign investors, particularly in the fossil fuel industry, to challenge climate policies and shift the financial risk of stranded assets onto taxpayers. It highlights a 'regulatory chill' effect where states may avoid implementing environmental rules to evade costly arbitration. The authors argue that the perceived benefits of investment treaties in attracting capital are unproven, while the costs—including massive compensation awards—are high. To resolve this, the document recommends that the OECD promote multilateral termination of treaties, the removal of protections for carbon-intensive investments, and the creation of 'climate carve-outs' to ensure that measures aligned with the Paris Agreement cannot be interpreted as treaty breaches.

The submission argues that current international investment agreements and the ISDS system create a 'regulatory chill' that discourages states from implementing urgent climate policies. It highlights the risk of fossil fuel companies using ISDS to secure massive payouts for 'stranded assets' and recommends that the OECD support multilateral termination of old treaties, the removal of protections for carbon-intensive investments, and the creation of climate-related carve-outs.

The document argues that reducing methane emissions by at least 45% by 2030 is essential to meet the 1.5°C target. It details sector-specific interventions: transitioning to agroecology and plant-based diets in agriculture, eliminating fossil fuels and fixing leaks in the energy sector, and implementing a waste hierarchy focused on organic waste prevention and composting in the waste sector. It further proposes a global governance framework based on monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV), national action plans, and financial assistance for developing countries.

The report argues that while the Global Methane Pledge aims for a 30% reduction by 2030, a 40–45% reduction is necessary to meet the 1.5°C target. It details sector-specific interventions: shifting to plant-rich diets and improving livestock management in agriculture; phasing out fossil fuels and implementing leak detection in energy; and prioritizing organic waste prevention and composting in the waste sector. It further advocates for a global governance framework based on monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV), national action plans, and financial assistance for developing countries.

ClientEarth argues that the revised State aid Guidelines and ABER for agriculture and forestry must be fully integrated with the EU Green Deal, the polluter pays principle, and the precautionary principle to avoid compromising environmental protection. The organization recommends strengthening compliance with Union environmental law, refining definitions for carbon farming and forests to prevent biodiversity loss, and increasing transparency in how aid is reported and monitored. Specific concerns are raised regarding aid for irrigation, which may cause a 'rebound effect' increasing water consumption, and the use of forest biomass for energy, which ClientEarth argues should be strictly limited to residues and follow the cascading principle. The document also suggests that aid for climate-related disaster recovery should be conditional on implementing adaptation measures to minimize future losses.

The document advocates for a dedicated EU Soil Health Law by 2023 to address the fact that 60-70% of EU soils are unhealthy. It argues that such a law is legally viable under the 'integration principle' of Article 11 TFEU and the principle of subsidiarity, as soil degradation has transboundary effects on climate, biodiversity, and food security. The brief emphasizes the role of the LUCAS Soil database in providing the science-based monitoring necessary for the law's implementation.

The document provides a framework for financial institutions to assess whether a counterparty's transition plan is credible, emphasizing quantitative targets, whole-institution integration, and sustainability. It argues that financial institutions should move beyond risk assessment to 'double materiality'—considering a company's impact on the climate. The brief also addresses the need for capacity building in developing economies and the advocacy for global, standardized climate disclosure frameworks to reduce greenwashing and ensure a just transition.

The Drawdown Lift fact sheet argues that climate mitigation and poverty alleviation are complementary. By analyzing 450 articles and reports, it identifies 28 climate solutions across five groups—Improving Agriculture and Agroforestry, Protecting and Restoring Ecosystems, Adopting Clean Cooking, Providing Clean Electricity, and Fostering Equality—that provide significant co-benefits for human well-being. These solutions target dimensions such as income, health, food security, and gender equality, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The report advocates for synergistic implementation and innovative finance to align climate goals with the needs of the most vulnerable populations.

The report argues that blending green hydrogen into existing natural gas infrastructure for buildings and power generation is inefficient, costly, and risky. It finds that electrification is a superior alternative for the building sector due to higher energy efficiency and lower costs. In the power sector, hydrogen-fired turbines face significant NOx pollution challenges and risk becoming stranded assets. The authors recommend that green hydrogen be reserved for 'hard-to-decarbonize' sectors like industrial feedstocks, aviation, and marine shipping, while urging regulators to maintain a high burden of proof for any ratepayer-funded hydrogen projects.

The report examines community-driven decentralised renewable energy (DRE) projects in Germany and Sub-Saharan Africa, arguing that local participation is essential for a successful clean energy transition. It identifies six key benefits of this approach, including energy security, local green job creation, and productive uses of renewable energy (PURE). The document details 12 case studies—three in Germany and nine in Africa—highlighting a variety of technologies such as solar PV mini-grids, micro-hydropower, and solar-powered desalination. It categorises barriers into social, financial, and technical pillars and provides targeted recommendations for public and private stakeholders to scale these models, emphasizing the need for gender-inclusive approaches and innovative financing.