Search Climate Insights Directory

The paper defines Zombie Energy Systems (ZES) as outdated, inefficient, and environmentally harmful energy assets that persist in Africa despite being obsolete. It argues that the current international focus on new renewable energy projects overlooks the necessity of decommissioning or rehabilitating these failing systems, which include ageing power plants, inefficient grids, and second-hand appliances. The authors trace the origins of ZES to colonial legacies, poor maintenance, and political corruption, and propose a holistic strategy involving comprehensive system assessments, regulatory strengthening, and local capacity building to ensure a just and effective energy transition.

The document defines environmental justice as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race or income in ensuring healthy environments. Climate justice extends these principles to address the disproportionate impacts of climate change on marginalized communities and the responsibility of wealthier nations. Energy justice frames access to clean, affordable energy as a human right and advocates for an equitable transition away from fossil fuels.

The paper argues for greater interdisciplinary integration between natural and social sciences to understand rapidly changing human-landscape systems. It specifically examines how environmental policy research aligns with four key themes: thresholds and tipping points, spatial scales and boundaries, feedback loops, and time scales and lags, aiming to identify research complementarities for future collaborative work.

The text presents Environmental Observatories as innovative tools that use indicators to monitor environmental, social, and economic conditions in rural areas. These observatories aim to make resource degradation and ecosystem service trends visible, allowing for the evaluation of production sustainability and the reduction of environmental risks and social conflicts. When linked to rural land-use planning, they provide feedback to align planning with ecological needs and population demands.

The paper establishes a conceptual framework for understanding nitrogen dynamics in Latin America, identifying a tension between socioeconomic demand drivers and political/institutional structural drivers. Using Brazil as a case study, it argues that while demand for food, energy, and housing drives emissions, the ability to implement effective policy responses depends on governance and institutional forcefulness.

The paper argues that 'wicked problems' in water security require integrative science-policy interfaces. It defines 'dialogic science-policy networks' as interdisciplinary, international, cross-sectoral, open, continual, and flexible interactions that achieve inclusivity, involvement, interaction, and influence. The authors highlight the AQUASEC virtual center as a comprehensive example of such a network, which has since expanded into the International Water Security Network. While these networks facilitate scientific and policy achievements, they face significant challenges regarding steady commitment and financial support, and there remains a research gap in evaluating their long-term outcomes.

Carbon Market Watch advocates for replacing 'net' climate targets with three distinct targets: gross emissions reductions, biogenic sequestration in natural sinks, and permanent carbon dioxide removals (CDR). The guide explains that 'net' targets often mask a lack of progress in emissions reductions by relying on uncertain or temporary removals. It distinguishes between permanent technical solutions, such as direct air capture and carbon storage (DACCS), and temporary natural solutions like reforestation. The document argues that separate targets prevent 'mitigation deterrence' and provide better governance of the finite resources required for CDR. While some progress is noted in Germany and Sweden, the author urges the European Commission to adopt this three-target approach in its upcoming 2040 climate target proposal.

The document advocates for separating carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from general climate goals to avoid 'mitigation deterrence,' where the hope of future CDR technologies slows current emission reductions. It proposes a three-pronged approach: binding targets for gross emission reductions, biosequestration in natural sinks, and permanent technological removal. While the EU currently uses 'net' targets for 2030 and 2050, the author suggests the upcoming 2040 target proposal is an ideal opportunity to formalize this separation.

The document serves as an educational tool to explain the technical and economic aspects of Colombia's energy system and the transition toward a low-carbon economy. It distinguishes between energy sources and forms, details the electricity value chain, and explains the environmental necessity of decarbonization and 'Net-Zero' goals. The guide emphasizes that a 'just energy transition' requires both a shift in energy sources and a parallel economic transition to ensure labor reconversion and regional sustainability.

The document argues that current analyses of habitability often overlook socio-cultural aspects, power dynamics, and the connectedness of places. To address this, the authors propose a systemic, intersectional, and spatially relational approach to habitability, emphasizing the need for a research agenda that integrates local perspectives and considers the influence of powerful actors.

The document defines carbon dioxide removal (CDR) as the physical extraction and permanent storage of atmospheric CO2. It argues that CDR must supplement, not substitute, deep emission reductions of over 90%. The handbook evaluates six negative emissions technologies and practices (NETPs)—biochar, BioCCS, DACCS, enhanced weathering, afforestation/reforestation, and soil carbon sequestration—detailing their technical readiness, permanence, and environmental trade-offs. It emphasizes the need for robust 'cradle-to-grave' carbon accounting, separate targets for reductions and removals to avoid mitigation deterrence, and the integration of the Planetary Boundaries framework to ensure Earth system stability. The text also critiques current EU legislation, such as the Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), for lacking ambition and failing to distinguish between permanent and temporary storage.

The paper argues that the corporate concept of solvency is inapplicable to sovereign states, suggesting instead that debt sustainability should be the anchoring concept for liquidity discussions. It identifies three interpretations of liquidity challenges: as a contrast to solvency, as rollover risks, and as a gap in financing for long-term investments. The authors highlight a prevalent "too optimistic" bias in sustainability assessments, which delays necessary debt restructurings. They recommend that debtor countries prioritize creating fiscal space through restructuring and that the international community enhance transparency via multistakeholder forums to align debt sustainability analyses with climate and development investment needs.

The document introduces "climate-beneficial bioenergy," a concept developed by the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) to distinguish modern, climate-positive bioenergy from conventional systems that may cause deforestation or disrupt food supplies. To be climate-beneficial, systems must couple biomass with engineered processes to permanently store carbon, potentially achieving net carbon dioxide removal (CDR). The author argues these systems are essential for hard-to-decarbonize sectors and for counterbalancing residual emissions in sectors like agriculture. Key attributes include using waste streams, non-food crops on marginal land, or forest thinnings, and employing technologies such as gasification or pyrolysis with carbon capture and storage (CCS). The document emphasizes the need for lifecycle assessments and policy safeguards to prevent detrimental environmental and social impacts.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) proposes 'ecosystem carbon management' to encompass both conventional biological carbon storage and novel technological approaches. Conventional methods, such as sustainable forestry and agricultural practices, provide immediate mitigation potential but face risks of reversal. Novel approaches, including enhanced rock weathering, ocean alkalinity enhancement, and biochar, aim for permanent storage over centuries or millennia. The document argues for a balanced deployment of these tools and the development of policy structures to provide financial incentives and safeguards for these emerging technologies.

The document defines Nature-based Solutions (NbS) for adaptation—also known as ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) and ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR)—as actions to protect, conserve, restore, sustainably use, and manage natural ecosystems to strengthen resilience against climate change. It details a four-step implementation process starting with methodology design and ending with the identification of adaptation options, grounded in participatory climate risk assessments. The text highlights specific examples of NbS, such as coral reef restoration to buffer coastal flooding and river basin management to address drought. It emphasizes that effective NbS must be gender-responsive, inclusive, and conflict-sensitive to ensure an equitable distribution of benefits.

The document describes nature-based adaptation solutions (SafN) as a subset of nature-based solutions (SfN) focused on protecting, conserving, restoring, and sustainably managing ecosystems to mitigate climate impacts. It details a four-step implementation process—from methodology development to identifying adaptation options—and highlights the co-benefits for biodiversity and human well-being, such as food and water security. The text emphasizes that effective SafN must be inclusive, gender-responsive, and integrated into broader adaptation strategies, drawing on international standards from the IUCN and the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The document establishes the conceptual foundations for an exploratory paper on disability rights and justice during the transition to electric school buses. It defines disability justice (DJ) and environmental justice (EJ) as frameworks rooted in the experiences of marginalized communities and people of color. It expands the definition of 'accessible school buses' beyond wheelchair lifts to include sensory and comfort-based features. Additionally, it details the four primary types of school buses (A, B, C, and D) and their capacities for ADA lift integration, while outlining the legal protections provided by the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and IDEA.

The 'Next Stop, Access! Before You Read' toolkit defines key terms and frameworks used in a research paper on the transition to electric school buses. It explains 'disability justice' and 'environmental justice' as lenses to focus on communities most impacted by climate change. The document details the types of school buses (A, B, C, and D), the concept of universal design, and the legal protections for people with disabilities in the US, such as the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and IDEA. It also introduces 'intersectionality' to describe how overlapping identities, such as race and disability, affect a person's experiences and access to resources.

The document argues that achieving a just, decarbonized economy requires a cooperative, cross-sectorial approach to climate action that engages disenfranchised and underserved communities. It asserts that the most critical issues for these populations are those impacting health, economic wellbeing, and overall prosperity, resulting from compounding inequities and multifaceted environmental risks.

The paper proposes a 'corporate climate accountability loop' to identify gaps in current corporate climate governance and suggests a transition from voluntary, conflicted systems toward mandatory, independent, and legally enforceable regulatory frameworks.