Search Climate Insights Directory

The author contends that the EU must integrate shipping into its carbon market by 2023 because the IMO has postponed concrete actions, such as slow-steaming. The text highlights the significant emissions of the shipping sector and suggests that carbon pricing, potentially as a tax, could effectively reduce CO2 emissions and generate revenue for research and development.

The author contends that the fossil fuel industry is the primary obstacle to climate progress, using lobbying and financial influence to block government action and corrupt international negotiations. Drawing a parallel to the tobacco divestment movement, the text argues that divestment removes the 'social license' of fossil fuel companies. It specifically calls on highly trusted UK health professionals and institutions, such as Royal Colleges, to divest from fossil fuels to create a ripple effect that pressures other investors and politicians globally.

ClientEarth calls for the abolition of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) and investment court system (ICS) mechanisms, arguing that these asymmetric systems prioritize corporate interests over the public good. The organization asserts that such mechanisms create a 'regulatory chill' that prevents governments from implementing climate and environmental laws, citing examples in Germany and Romania. It advocates for the use of domestic legal systems as the primary route for resolving investment disputes to ensure the protection of the environment and the sovereignty of states.

Friends of the Earth International calls for an immediate transition from a pollutant-heavy energy system to a decentralized, people-led model. The statement rejects 'false solutions' like carbon capture and argues that developed nations must take primary responsibility for emissions reductions and financial transfers to the Global South to ensure a just transition.

The brief supports petitioners in Jam v. International Finance Corporation, contending that applying a restrictive theory of immunity under the IOIA would enhance the accountability of international organizations and complement existing non-judicial accountability mechanisms without causing a flood of litigation.

The document advocates for a pollution price for shipping to complement the International Maritime Organisation's (IMO) goal of cutting emissions by 50% below 2008 levels by 2050. It highlights that shipping accounts for over 2% of global emissions and suggests that carbon pricing would incentivise the use of renewable fuels, incorporate environmental costs into shipowners' decisions, and generate revenue to support least developed and developing countries.

The document presents temporary migration as a 'home-grown climate change adaptation' strategy used by farmers and pastoralists to survive climate-induced agricultural failures. It highlights how restrictive border policies and conflicts hinder this survival mechanism, urging governments to create legal migration options and open borders to facilitate safe adaptation rather than attempting to prevent movement.

The document asserts that the revamped EU ETS rules for 2021-2030 are insufficient to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees, necessitating additional national actions such as carbon floor prices. It highlights the UK's experience, where a floor price introduced in 2013 contributed to a nearly 60% drop in coal emissions in 2016. The text notes similar initiatives in the Netherlands and considerations in Nordic countries, arguing that such price floors provide investment certainty and discourage the use of coal to avoid stranded assets.

The document frames climate change as a form of 'climate debt' where the true cost of pollution is shifted to future generations and society. It highlights the economic impact of extreme weather, noting that the 2017 North Atlantic hurricane season caused $215 billion in losses. To address this, the author advocates for increasing the coverage and level of carbon pricing globally to ensure emitters face the full cost of their pollution, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions and funding adaptation for vulnerable communities.

The World Resources Institute outlines five primary reasons why the United States should maintain its participation in the Paris Agreement, asserting that withdrawal would harm U.S. diplomatic standing, business interests, and job growth in the clean energy sector. The author highlights that 71 percent of Americans support staying in the Agreement and notes that the U.S. clean energy workforce is expanding significantly faster than the coal sector. Furthermore, the document argues that remaining in the Agreement allows the U.S. to maintain leverage over transparency requirements and the development of the Agreement's rulebook.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) asserts that coal plants are major sources of sulphur dioxide (SO2), which transforms into secondary sulphates and contributes to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) linked to heart and lung diseases. Citing World Health Organization (WHO) and Health Canada data, the statement claims that phasing out coal by 2030 would prevent thousands of premature deaths and hospital visits in Canada, providing billions of dollars in health benefits while supporting Paris Agreement commitments.

Minister Per Bolund and Johan Kuylenstierna argue that the global financial system must be transformed to steer investment toward a low-carbon pathway to meet the targets of the Paris Agreement and Sustainable Development Goals. While noting initiatives from the World Bank and G20, the authors highlight that green finance remains in its infancy, with green bonds and green infrastructure assets each making up less than 1% of their respective global totals.

The author contends that traditional attempts to control water through artificial solutions have created vulnerabilities that are now being exposed by a changing climate. The document advocates for a 'resilience mindset' in water management, particularly within humanitarian and development funding, moving away from short-term recovery toward long-term capacity for communities to thrive despite recurrent water challenges. This approach emphasizes the use of predictive models, early warning systems, and the integration of indigenous knowledge. To implement this, the Global Resilience Partnership (GRP) has focused on the Sahel, Horn of Africa, and South and Southeast Asia, and has launched a Water Window Challenge with a $10 million commitment from the Z Zurich Foundation to fund innovative flood-resilience solutions.

The document outlines the necessity of climate compatible development to align the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement. It argues that while theoretical pathways to zero poverty and zero emissions exist, achieving them requires policy leadership, design, and implementation to overcome significant economic and social trade-offs.

The author contends that animal agriculture is a major but ignored driver of climate change, responsible for at least 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The text calls for the EU's Common Agricultural Policy to shift subsidies away from meat and dairy and toward farmers diversifying into plant protein crops, such as fava beans and hemp in the UK. It highlights that reducing animal farming is essential for the UK to meet its 80% emissions reduction target by 2050 and suggests that dietary shifts toward veganism could yield carbon savings greater than removing all cars from UK roads.

The paper contends that while green industrial policy is often criticized for enabling rent-seeking, the creation of rents is necessary to incentivize investment in high-risk green technologies where markets fail. It proposes shifting the policy focus toward 'rent management'—the strategic process of defining, offering, and eventually withdrawing extra profits—to ensure a transition to a low-carbon economy despite high technological uncertainty and long investment horizons.

Earthjustice, representing a coalition of environmental and community groups, urges the City of Oakland to reject the development of a coal export terminal at the former Oakland Army Base. The letter asserts that the project would disproportionately burden the low-income, predominantly African American community of West Oakland with particulate matter and diesel pollution, while violating California's greenhouse gas reduction goals. It argues that proposed mitigations, such as covered rail cars, are ineffective and that the project is an economic risk due to declining global coal demand. Finally, the document claims the project lacks necessary environmental review under CEQA and NEPA and that the City possesses the legal authority to ban the terminal to protect public health.

The authors advocate for five-year cycles of climate commitments over ten-year cycles to better align with scientific data and the rapid pace of technological innovation. They argue that current intended national climate commitments are insufficient, potentially leading to warming of 3 to 3.5°C, and that shorter cycles provide the predictability necessary for business investment in a low-carbon economy.

The author advocates for the use of federalism as a long-term political framework to manage ethnically divided states, arguing that the international community can and should impose such structures even without the initial volition of local elites. Using Bosnia and Herzegovina as a primary example, the text contrasts federalism with the historical approach of creating ethnically homogeneous nation-states through population transfers. The author suggests that a federal solution, involving power-sharing among moderate elites and international oversight, could be applied to conflicts in Israel/Palestine and Ukraine, provided there is sufficient international political will and a commitment to transitional justice.

The authors contend that current 'business-as-usual' urbanization, characterized by car-oriented infrastructure, leads to high greenhouse gas emissions, economic losses from congestion, and safety risks. They advocate for 'smart urban mobility'—which combines technology with coordinated planning—to 'leapfrog' car-centric development. Examples of successful interventions include Mexico City's Metrobús BRT, Beijing's low emission zone, and Medellín's Metrocable. The document highlights 2015 as a pivotal year due to the finalization of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, upcoming climate negotiations, and the UN Decade of Action on Road Safety.