Search Climate Insights Directory

The report examines 'coal transition credits' as a financial tool for early coal plant closure in Southeast Asia. It finds significant expert skepticism, with only 2 out of 10 experts viewing them as effective. Major risks identified include carbon leakage, baseline inflation, and 'perverse incentives' that may reward polluters. The document concludes that CTCs are not a reliable exit strategy and emphasizes the need for systemic public policy and funding over market-based offsets.

The report examines 'coal transition credits' (CTCs) as a mechanism to accelerate the phase-out of coal-fired power plants in Southeast Asia. While proponents suggest CTCs can unlock private finance for early retirement and just transition measures, a survey of 10 experts reveals widespread skepticism. Key concerns include the risk of carbon leakage, where retired capacity is replaced by other fossil fuels, and the difficulty of establishing conservative baselines to prove additionality. Experts warn that CTCs could create perverse incentives, rewarding polluters and encouraging the delay of retirements to maximize credit issuance. Furthermore, the report highlights structural barriers in Southeast Asia, such as young coal plant fleets and rigid power purchase agreements, and notes that current methodologies, including Verra's VM0052, may have loopholes regarding 'captive' coal plants. The findings suggest that without rigorous guardrails and a focus on public finance, CTCs risk being a tool for greenwashing rather than a driver of genuine climate impact.

The report examines 'coal transition credits' (CTC)—carbon credits generated by retiring coal plants early and replacing them with renewables—as a way to fund the energy transition in Southeast Asia. Based on a survey of 10 experts, the document finds deep skepticism regarding the instrument's effectiveness. Key concerns include 'carbon leakage' (where retired capacity is replaced by other fossil fuels), the subjectivity of baseline scenarios leading to over-issuance, and the risk of 'greenwashing' or rewarding polluters. Experts highlight that only 2 out of 10 view CTCs as effective, warning that without strict safeguards, these credits could undermine genuine decarbonization and fail to provide a 'just transition' for affected workers and communities.

The document presents survey results from global and regional experts on the governance of the Guarani Aquifer System. Experts identified gaps in regulation and data, noted that contamination and overdrafting are currently localized, and viewed groundwater as a state-administered public resource. While a formal transboundary agreement is progressing, the findings emphasize the necessity of governance at local and national scales.

The 2025 Expert Survey on the Global Information Environment, involving 438 researchers across 76 countries, examines the state of 'epistemic security'—the reliability of information supply chains. The report finds that while social media can increase political participation, it also drives polarization and distrust in institutions. A significant 66% of surveyed experts reported experiencing harassment, intervention, or chilling effects in their scientific work, with funding constraints and data access remaining primary barriers. Regarding AI, there is strong expert consensus (60%) that AI-generated content should be clearly labeled, and 83% believe such labeling would improve the information environment. The document advocates for treating the information environment as critical infrastructure, recommending independent algorithmic auditing and stronger protections for researchers and journalists.

The report presents findings from the 2025 IPIE Expert Survey, highlighting a growing pessimism about the future of the information environment. It identifies the availability of accurate information and diverse voices as essential for a healthy environment, while citing lack of platform accountability as a primary threat. The document also examines the mixed impact of social media, the negative perceptions of generative AI, and the increasing barriers faced by researchers, particularly regarding funding and academic freedom.

The 2025 IPIE expert survey reveals growing pessimism about the global information environment, with 72% of respondents expecting it to worsen. The report highlights a 'chilling effect' on researchers, the complex dual role of social media in promoting political participation while increasing polarization, and a strong expert consensus on the need for clear labeling of AI-generated content and regular algorithmic audits to safeguard cognitive security.

The 2025 IPIE expert survey reveals growing pessimism regarding the global information environment, with 72% of experts expecting further deterioration. While social networks are seen as drivers of both political polarization and engagement, researchers face significant barriers including self-censorship and harassment. The report advocates for systemic safeguards in the AI era, such as mandatory content labeling and algorithmic audits, to protect the integrity of information supply chains.

The 2025 IPIE Expert Survey reveals increasing pessimism about the global information environment, with 72% of experts expecting further degradation. While social media is seen to both increase political participation and exacerbate polarization, there is a strong expert consensus on the need for AI-generated content labeling and algorithmic auditing. Additionally, the report highlights significant systemic pressures on researchers, including harassment and self-censorship, particularly in developing economies.

The 2025 IPIE Expert Survey reveals increasing pessimism regarding the global information environment, with 72% of experts expecting it to worsen. While social media is seen as a driver of both political polarization and participation, researchers face significant barriers, including harassment and self-censorship. Experts advocate for specific AI safeguards, such as mandatory labeling of synthetic content and periodic algorithmic audits, to protect the reliability of information supply chains.

The 2025 Expert Survey on the Global Information Environment reveals growing pessimism, with 72% of experts expecting the information environment to worsen. The report highlights a complex relationship with social media, where platforms are seen to increase polarization while promoting political participation. It also documents significant 'chilling effects' on researchers, with 73% reporting harassment, self-censorship, or funding fears. To safeguard epistemic security in the AI era, experts recommend clear labeling of AI-generated content and regular algorithmic audits.

The 2025 IPIE expert survey reveals a growing pessimism regarding the global information environment, with 72% of experts believing it is deteriorating. The document highlights the dual nature of social media—increasing both political polarization and engagement—and reports significant pressures on researchers, including self-censorship and harassment. It advocates for 'epistemic security' through measures such as clear labeling of AI-generated content and regular algorithmic audits.

The 2024 IPIE expert survey of 412 researchers across 66 countries reveals a growing pessimism about the global information environment, with 63% expecting it to deteriorate. Experts identify the availability of accurate information and diversity of opinion as the most critical features of a healthy information environment. Social media platform owners and governments are viewed as the most severe threats. While generative AI is seen as a tool for both hope and concern, 63% of experts fear its potential to amplify disinformation and harassment. The report advocates for supporting free and independent media and improving data access for researchers to build resilience.

The 2024 IPIE expert survey reveals a growing pessimism about the global information environment, with 63% of experts expecting it to worsen. Key threats are identified as social media platform owners and government actors. While generative AI is seen as a tool for improving content detection and reporting, experts primarily fear its role in amplifying misinformation, harassment, and bias. The consensus emphasizes that accessibility to accurate information and diversity of speech are fundamental to a healthy information environment.

The 2024 IPIE expert survey of 412 researchers across 66 countries indicates a growing pessimism about the global information environment, with 63% expecting it to worsen. Experts identify social media platform owners and governments as the primary threats. While generative AI is viewed as a tool for improving journalism and content detection, there is significant concern regarding its role in amplifying harassment, bias, and misinformation. The report emphasizes the necessity of supporting independent media and improving data access for interdisciplinary research.

The 2024 IPIE expert survey of 412 researchers across 66 countries identifies the availability of accurate information and diversity of voices as the primary features of a healthy information environment. Social media platform owners, governments, and politicians are cited as the most significant threats. While generative AI is viewed as a tool that could potentially improve content detection and journalism, 63% of experts express significant concern regarding its potential to amplify misinformation, harassment, and bias. Experts in developing countries report higher levels of concern regarding AI and platform-based threats but show greater optimism toward interventions like fact-checking and media literacy.

The 2024 IPIE expert survey of 412 researchers across 66 countries identifies the availability of accurate information and diversity of voices as essential for a healthy information environment. Social media platform owners and politicians are viewed as the primary threats. While generative AI is seen as a risk—particularly regarding AI-generated videos—there is moderate hope for its use in content detection and journalistic support. Experts generally predict the information environment will worsen in 2025, emphasizing the need for more research outside the USA and Western democracies.

The 2024 IPIE expert survey reveals a growing pessimism about the global information environment, with 63% of experts expecting it to deteriorate. The availability of accurate information and diversity of voices are identified as the most critical characteristics of a healthy information environment. Social media platform owners, governments, and politicians are cited as the primary threats. While generative AI is viewed as a tool that could improve content detection and journalism, experts are more concerned about its potential to amplify disinformation, harassment, and bias.

The 2024 IPIE expert survey reveals a growing pessimism about the global information environment, with 63% of experts expecting it to worsen. The availability of accurate information and diversity of voices are identified as the most critical characteristics of a healthy environment. Social media platform owners, governments, and politicians are cited as the primary threats. While generative AI is viewed as a tool that could improve content detection and journalism, experts are predominantly concerned that it will amplify disinformation, harassment, and bias. Experts advocate for supporting free and independent media and digital media literacy to build resilience.

The 2024 IPIE expert survey reveals a growing pessimism about the global information environment, with 63% of respondents expecting conditions to worsen. Experts identify the availability of accurate information and diversity of opinion as the most critical characteristics of a healthy environment, while naming social media owners, governments, and politicians as the primary threats. Generative AI is viewed with mixed sentiment: 63% of experts believe it has negatively impacted the environment by scaling disinformation and bias, though 67% hope it will improve content detection and journalistic efficiency. To improve the environment, experts advocate for free and independent media and increased digital media literacy.