Search Climate Insights Directory

A statement from 2,505 scientists supporting the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act to protect public health and address climate change.

The document asserts that the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill serves as a warning against drilling in high-risk, sensitive areas like the Arctic. It highlights the Oil Spill Commission's finding that the Gulf disaster was preventable and that significant gaps in understanding deepwater and Arctic drilling persist. Earthjustice advocates for a science-based permitting process involving ocean researchers and argues that the safest approach to the Arctic is to avoid drilling entirely to reduce oil dependency.

The author supports the EPA's plan to propose carbon performance standards for power plants by July 2011, arguing that such regulations are necessary in the absence of federal legislation to drive clean energy investment and reduce harmful emissions. The text emphasizes that while coal-fired plants are a major source of pollution and 40% of U.S. carbon emissions, phased-in regulation and the development of a robust carbon capture and storage (CCS) industry are the most effective paths toward climate stabilization.

The document critiques carbon markets, specifically the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), as tools that perpetuate dependence on fossil fuels and facilitate 'carbon colonialism'. It highlights how offsetting allows rich nations to outsource their climate responsibilities to developing countries, often resulting in human rights violations, land grabbing, and the funding of projects like coal plants or gas flaring. The author advocates for a systemic transformation based on energy efficiency, renewable energy, and public climate finance instead of market-based mechanisms.

A coalition of NGOs argues that HFC-23 projects, which account for half of all CDM carbon credits, are based on a flawed methodology leading to the over-issuance of credits that do not represent real emission reductions. The letter criticizes the CDM Executive Board for resuming credit issuance despite these findings and calls for the rescission of credits issued since 26 November 2010, a total halt on further issuance until methodology is corrected, and the adoption of HFC phase-down measures under the Montreal Protocol.

The document highlights the accelerating loss of Arctic sea ice and the resulting threats to indigenous communities and global populations as evidence of the climate crisis. It argues that while law alone cannot solve climate change, international law is a vital instrument for achieving justice and protecting the rights of those most vulnerable to environmental degradation. The text frames the mission of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) as using transformative legal approaches to hold powerful entities accountable and protect human health and the environment on a global scale.

The author expresses concern that the Obama administration may sacrifice the EPA's regulatory authority over greenhouse gas emissions to ensure the passage of a Senate climate bill. The text highlights political opposition from figures like Senator Lisa Murkowski and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, while noting the efforts of Senators Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham to draft a bill. It emphasizes that a multi-tool approach—combining legislative action with EPA regulation—is essential to meet climate goals and maintain economic competitiveness.

The author contends that 'grandfathering' existing coal-fired power plants in climate legislation would repeat past mistakes by incentivizing the continued operation of polluting facilities. The text argues that the Clean Air Act's regulatory powers are essential and complementary to a cap-and-trade system to ensure rapid emissions reductions and the growth of a clean energy economy.

The Union of Concerned Scientists asserts that the United States requires federal legislation to overcome barriers in the planning and siting of transmission lines, which currently hinder the deployment of renewable energy. The document advocates for 'Green Energy Superhighways' to connect remote renewable resource areas to population centers, while emphasizing that federal authority should act as a backstop when states cannot agree on facilities of national interest. It warns that without a federal cap-and-trade system, transmission expansion in the Northeastern United States could inadvertently increase carbon emissions by allowing coal-based power to flow from non-RGGI states to those with emission caps.

A group of Brazilian and international organizations opposes the approval of Plantar S.A.'s CDM project, "Cultivated Biomass as a Renewable Source of Energy for Pig Iron Production". The authors argue that the project lacks additionality because the company has already been planting eucalyptus since 2000 and that the operations cause significant environmental degradation and social injustices, including the displacement of indigenous and peasant communities.

The briefing contends that forests should not be treated primarily as carbon sinks and warns that market-based REDD mechanisms risk creating climate loopholes and displacing local communities. It advocates for funding forest conservation through national programs and carbon taxes in industrialized nations rather than carbon markets, emphasizing the need to address the underlying drivers of deforestation such as agrofuels and industrial logging.

The fact sheet contends that treating forests primarily as carbon sinks undermines biodiversity and the rights of indigenous peoples. It argues against the use of carbon markets and REDD, suggesting instead that industrialized nations provide direct financial support and address the root causes of deforestation, such as industrial logging and unsustainable consumption of meat and paper.

The document advocates for amending the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to include federal forest residues as eligible feedstocks for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). It argues that utilizing these materials would provide a sustainable source of cellulosic biofuels without the indirect greenhouse gas emissions associated with agricultural land displacement. Furthermore, the author contends that creating markets for small-diameter trees through the RFS would make hazardous fuel reduction and forest restoration more cost-effective, reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires and improving ecosystem health.

The document argues that greenhouse gas emissions from shipping are increasing at an alarming rate and calls for immediate regulatory action by the IMO. It proposes short-term measures including vessel speed reductions, which can reduce fuel bills by up to 40%, and a global carbon tax on marine fuels to fund climate mitigation and adaptation, particularly in developing countries. It also suggests shoreside power and wind power as technical solutions while cautioning against relying on reporting or indexing as substitutes for actual reduction measures.

The document examines the tensions between trade liberalization and climate goals, proposing that the EU integrate ambitious environmental standards into trade agreements and that WTO rules be subordinated to international climate agreements.

The document argues that shipping emissions are increasing at an alarming rate and that current IMO policies, such as voluntary indexing, are ineffective. It highlights the contribution of CO2, nitrogen oxides, and black carbon to climate change and Arctic melting, while warning that IMO inaction is prompting unilateral measures in the EU and US states like California and Washington. FOEI requests the IMO implement mandatory speed reductions, weather routing, and fuel economy standards, while insisting that these efforts remain separate from MARPOL Annex VI revisions regarding toxic air pollutants.

The IPEN Dubai Declaration outlines a comprehensive strategy to eliminate persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and other toxic chemicals by 2020. It calls for the adoption of the precautionary principle, the 'no data, no market' rule, and the 'polluter pays' principle. The declaration emphasizes protecting vulnerable populations, including children and indigenous communities, and advocates for a just transition for workers. It further urges the expansion of international agreements like the Stockholm and Rotterdam Conventions and the establishment of a dedicated chemical safety focal area within the Global Environment Facility (GEF).

The document is an open letter from various civil society organizations to WTO Director General Pascal Lamy, criticizing the process used by the Council for Trade in Services (CTS) to draft the ministerial declaration. The authors argue that the current process allows the Chair to include non-consensual elements—such as numerical targets and plurilateral approaches—while excluding agreed-upon items like the emergency safeguard mechanism (ESM). They warn that forcing countries to open specific sectors through numerical indicators threatens the policy space and development goals of developing countries and Least Developed Countries (LDCs). The letter demands that the final draft presented in Hong Kong use brackets to clearly mark positions where no consensus exists.

The report examines the link between environmental degradation and rural poverty, asserting that neoliberal policies—such as trade liberalization, privatization, and industrial agriculture—exacerbate poverty by stripping communities of their natural resources. It provides global case studies where community-led initiatives in forestry, fisheries, and renewable energy have successfully improved livelihoods. The document advocates for the unconditional cancellation of external debt, the recognition of an 'ecological debt' owed by the North to the South, and the promotion of food sovereignty and environmental justice.

Forty-two organizations oppose a June 17 draft of amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) intended to implement the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). The signatories argue the draft contains flaws that would hinder the EPA's ability to regulate new POPs, contradicts the treaty's precautionary principle by requiring a 'reasonable balance' between health and economic costs, and introduces 'sound science' requirements that could invite litigation. They further criticize the draft for establishing a regulatory ceiling that prevents the U.S. from implementing stricter standards than the Convention minimums and for including preemption language that could void state and local protections. The organizations advocate for a draft proposed by Representative Solis, which they claim better enables the U.S. to fulfill its international obligations while preserving domestic environmental law.