Search Climate Insights Directory

The Changing Markets Foundation identifies a coordinated network of 'mis-influencers'—including scientists, doctors, and journalists—who amplified industry-led hashtags like #Yes2Meat to discredit the EAT-Lancet planetary health diet. The report reveals that a small group of 100 accounts drove nearly 50% of the backlash posts and over 90% of engagement, with some individuals receiving direct industry funding or using the campaign to fundraise. Evidence from leaked documents suggests PR agencies and industry-funded centers, such as the UC Davis CLEAR Center, played key roles in this effort. The report warns that the meat industry is preparing a new communications drive to maintain its 'social licence' and derail action on climate and health science before the launch of EAT-Lancet 2.0.

The report argues that the effectiveness of National Adaptation Plan (NAP) processes depends on embedding deliberate learning—defined as the collective process of acquiring and applying knowledge to change attitudes and behaviors—rather than assuming learning happens automatically through monitoring and evaluation (M&E). It proposes a framework for fostering learning by integrating it across the planning, implementation, and MEL phases, strengthening enabling environments (such as leadership and institutional arrangements), and linking activities to concrete outcomes. A review of 45 NAP documents reveals that while 89% mention 'learning', most references are generic and high-level, with M&E being the primary identified source of learning. The report concludes with eight considerations for countries, emphasizing the need for clear learning directions, inclusion of marginalized groups, and dedicated resources from knowledge brokers.

The report examines the environmental platforms of seven political parties and one electoral alliance for the 2021 Estonian local elections. It finds a significant increase in the volume and specificity of environmental promises compared to 2017, with a shift in focus toward climate, energy, and mobility. In Tallinn, mobility dominated the discourse, while Tartu platforms emphasized nature and parks. The analysis highlights that Eestimaa Rohelised (Greens) provided the most comprehensive environmental programs across all levels, while EKRE's platforms were the most modest and occasionally opposed the 'green transition'. The document also assesses the alignment of these promises with the UN SDGs and the criteria for Tallinn's bid as a European Green Capital.

The report finds that while health is a priority in National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), SRHR is largely overlooked in overarching documents, creating a gap between sector-specific health planning and national climate strategy. It argues that realizing SRHR is a foundation for climate resilience and recommends integrating SRHR into vulnerability assessments, gender analyses, and monitoring systems.

The report analyzes 19 general NAP documents, five health-sector NAPs, and five Green Climate Fund proposals to assess the integration of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) in climate adaptation planning. It finds that while health is universally prioritized, specific SRHR issues are rarely addressed in general NAPs and often disconnected from sector-specific health plans. The document argues that SRHR is a fundamental basis for climate resilience, as its denial limits women's agency and participation in climate action. It provides eight recommendations to better integrate SRHR through gender-responsive vulnerability assessments, inter-agency collaboration, and systemic health sector adaptation.

The research finds that while sustainable development indicators are widely reported in corporate documents, their actual integration into decision-making processes remains limited. At the Board level, indicators are primarily used for risk management, such as health and safety. In corporate strategic management, senior executives have access to indicators—sometimes via Balanced Scorecards—but concrete examples of their use in guiding decisions are scarce. Supply chain management is in an "embryonic stage," relying more on codes of conduct and certifications than quantitative indicators. The author recommends further research into Board accountability, the development of context-specific supply chain metrics, and the integration of sustainability targets into individual performance appraisals.

The report documents widespread political interference in U.S. federal climate science, characterized by the manipulation of scientific findings, restrictive media policies, and declining funding. Through surveys and interviews, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project found that scientists frequently faced pressure to alter their results or eliminate terms like 'global warming' to align with political goals, leading to poor morale and diminished scientific integrity.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Government Accountability Project (GAP) found widespread political interference in U.S. federal climate science, including pressure to alter findings and restrict communication. Survey data shows that 58% of federal climate scientists experienced interference in the five years prior to the report, contrasting sharply with the experience of non-federal scientists at NCAR. The report highlights barriers to media access, declining inflation-adjusted funding since the mid-1990s, and poor morale, recommending reforms to ensure scientific openness and the 'right of last review' for scientists.