Search Climate Insights Directory

The statement contends that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has overseen a period of significant deregulation and funding cuts that undermine public health and environmental protection. It highlights the removal of human life valuation from air pollution analyses, the cancellation of $22 billion in environmental justice grants, and a 90 percent budget cut to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund despite PFAS reduction being listed as a priority. The author asserts that these actions, alongside the dismantling of the Office of Research and Development and a 52 percent overall budget cut, prioritize industry interests over scientific integrity and community health.

The 2026 National Budget is criticized for maintaining austerity measures, reducing non-interest spending by R5.2 billion in 2026/27, and failing to address chronic food insecurity and unemployment. The document highlights that real spending on public services, including education and healthcare, is declining, while tax relief is skewed toward higher-income earners. It further critiques the second Gender Budget Statement for being peripheral to fiscal decision-making and failing to address the structural vulnerabilities of female-headed households.

The IEJ argues that the current debt-reduction strategy is ineffective and suppresses economic growth. It recommends rejecting regressive taxes, such as VAT increases and the freeze on personal income tax brackets, while proposing progressive alternatives like wealth taxes and reinstating the corporate income tax rate to fund social protection and infrastructure.

The document critiques the proposed Fiscal Year 2026 budget, asserting that it seeks to dismantle environmental progress through significant funding cuts to conservation and cultural programs. It highlights a shift toward deregulation and resource extraction, specifically noting reductions in funding for the National Park Service, the Historic Preservation Fund, and various research and restoration programs. The author contends that these cuts disproportionately affect Latino communities and shift federal responsibilities to under-resourced state and tribal governments.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) criticizes South Africa's Budget 3.0 as an 'austerity budget' that reverses previous spending gains. The IEJ highlights significant reductions in non-interest spending, social grants, and infrastructure projects compared to earlier budget versions. The document argues that the government is relying on regressive revenue measures, such as fuel levy increases and unadjusted income tax brackets, while ignoring progressive alternatives and failing to utilize available reserves like the GFECRA.

The Council on Strategic Risks argues that the Trump Administration's proposed FY2026 budget for the State Department and USAID would undermine US national security by eliminating programs that build climate resilience, food security, and disaster preparedness. The document highlights how these cuts create strategic openings for China, particularly in Asia and the Pacific, and increase the risk of global instability and migration. It specifically calls for clarity on the implementation of the Global Fragility Act and the balance between the administration's goal of seabed mineral extraction and the simultaneous cutting of scientific funding for ocean exploration.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) criticizes the 2025 National Budget for maintaining a fiscal strategy focused on debt stabilization and regressive taxation, specifically the proposed VAT increases and personal income tax bracket freezes. While acknowledging a shift away from explicit spending cuts, the IEJ argues that expenditure increases in health, education, and social grants remain insufficient to restore pre-pandemic service levels or address food insecurity. The statement calls for Parliament to amend the budget by increasing corporate tax, removing tax breaks for high earners, and expanding the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) criticises the 2024 Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS) as a continuation of 'anti-poor' austerity measures. The IEJ argues that the budget prioritises debt stabilisation over inclusive growth, fails to adequately resource public services, and implements 'savage and unconstitutional' cuts to social grants, specifically the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant. The statement further warns against the use of binding fiscal rules and the shift toward Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) for infrastructure, which the IEJ claims can increase user fees and hinder access for the vulnerable. Additionally, the document notes a decline in funding for industrialisation and agriculture, and criticises the government's lack of progressive revenue-raising measures and its alignment with OECD rather than UN-led international tax cooperation.

The statement contends that the R20 increase to the SRD grant is an 'insulting pittance' that fails to account for a 20% real-term decrease in grant value since 2020. It highlights that the grant remains below the R760 monthly minimum energy intake cost and argues that budget cuts from R44 billion in 2022 to R33.6 billion in 2024 create systemic barriers and high exclusion errors, affecting approximately 50% of eligible persons. The authors advocate for the implementation of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) to meet constitutional obligations and stimulate economic growth.

The IEJ criticizes the South African National Treasury's reliance on austerity and private-sector-led growth, arguing that the real burden of national debt is its cost rather than its size. The report proposes a shift toward a developmental budget that prioritizes public investment in infrastructure, green energy, and social services. To fund these priorities without increasing VAT, the IEJ suggests implementing a net wealth tax, reducing tax breaks for high earners, addressing illicit financial flows, and utilizing the Gold and Foreign Exchange Contingency Reserve Account (GFECRA). The document also calls for increasing the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant to the Food Poverty Line and restructuring Eskom's debt to facilitate a just energy transition.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) expresses concern over the Department of Social Development's draft amendments to the Covid-19 Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant, which only extend the grant's expiry to March 2024 without increasing its R350 monthly value. The IEJ argues that the lack of funding in the 2023/24 National Budget suggests a plan to withdraw the grant, which would exacerbate food insecurity amid 13.4% food inflation in January 2023. Furthermore, the IEJ highlights that beneficiary numbers have dropped by approximately three million since March 2022 due to exclusionary regulations and flawed application systems. The IEJ calls for the grant to be retained indefinitely and transitioned into a comprehensive basic income support system, asserting that National Treasury has the fiscal space to do so following a R94 billion revenue overrun.

The document outlines eight reasons why the UK should not increase its military spending, asserting that the UK and NATO already possess significant force advantages over Russia and China. It highlights recent budget increases, such as a £24bn boost in 2020, and criticizes the arbitrary nature of NATO's 2% GDP spending target. The author argues that funds would be better allocated to the National Health Service, overseas aid, and carbon emission reductions, noting that military spending is more than seven times the budget for reducing national carbon emissions.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) criticises the 2023 National Budget as 'anti-poor' due to its focus on fiscal consolidation and debt stabilisation over public service provision. The IEJ recommends a new macroeconomic framework targeting unemployment and inequality, unconditional debt relief for Eskom including 'haircuts' for private debt holders, and the implementation of progressive taxation measures such as a wealth tax and returning the corporate income tax rate to 28%.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) calls for the 2023/2024 Budget to abandon regressive macroeconomic policies and prioritize public investment in infrastructure, the green economy, and social services. The statement emphasizes the need for the state to absorb Eskom's debt, renegotiate power purchase agreements, and increase the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant to the Food Poverty Line to combat extreme poverty and energy instability.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) warns that National Treasury is undermining the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant through restrictive regulations and underfunding. Despite the President's commitment to a permanent basic income floor, the IEJ notes that the grant's value remains frozen at R350, failing to account for inflation and falling short of the Food Poverty Line (FPL) of R663. The document highlights a significant drop in approved applications—from 10.9 million in March 2022 to 7.5 million in January 2023—which the IEJ attributes to an excessively low means test of R624 and an onerous application process. The IEJ demands that the grant be increased to the FPL and that exclusionary provisions be revoked to protect the constitutional rights of the approximately 18.3 million people living in extreme poverty in South Africa.

The document criticises the National Treasury for underfunding the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant and implementing exclusionary regulations. It highlights a significant drop in approved applications from 10.9 million in March 2022 to 7.5 million in January 2023, attributing this to a low means-test threshold of R624 and complex application processes. The IEJ calls for the grant to be increased to the Food Poverty Line of R663 and for the government to honour the President's commitment to protect grants from inflation.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) criticises the South African National Treasury's 2022 Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS) for maintaining a path of austerity and fiscal consolidation since 2012. The IEJ asserts that prioritising debt stabilisation over developmental goals leads to declining expenditure per learner in basic education and real-term cuts in healthcare spending. The document also highlights the failure to adjust the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant for inflation and the exclusion of 3.5 million people from the grant due to stringent criteria. While noting positive infrastructure investment and Eskom debt absorption, the IEJ warns that Eskom's unbundling and private sector participation may lead to higher tariffs. The IEJ advocates for progressive taxation to fund public services and reduce income inequality.

The document argues that the 24 June 2020 Supplementary Budget reneges on the promised R500 billion COVID-19 rescue package by providing only a net increase of R36 billion in non-interest spending. The authors contend that the budget relies on reprioritising existing funds, leading to dangerous cuts in basic education, higher education, transport, and energy, while failing to provide adequate support for social security, job creation, and health. They recommend the budget's rejection in favour of counter-cyclical measures financed through solidarity taxation, increased borrowing, and reserve bank action.