Search Climate Insights Directory

The statement critiques the 'like-for-like' principle in climate policy, which suggests matching the atmospheric lifetime or carbon cycle of emissions with corresponding removal types. The author contends that this logic allows industries to use cheap, temporary, and vulnerable removals to avoid deep emission cuts. It specifically highlights the danger of offsetting methane emissions with temporary storage, noting that methane has a permanent climate impact as it breaks down into CO2. The document also discusses the EU Green Claims Directive, noting a divide between the European Parliament's preference for permanent removals for fossil emissions and the more permissive stance of the European Commission and Council. The author concludes that all residual emissions should be balanced only by high-quality removals that lock away CO2 for centuries or millennia.

Climate Central argues that the Department of Energy (DOE) report, “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate,” fails to represent the scientific consensus and should not serve as a policy basis. The organization asserts that the DOE report selectively ignores two decades of scientific developments and omits major international assessments. Specifically, Climate Central contends that the DOE understates the link between human-caused climate change and the increasing intensity, rainfall, and rapid intensification of hurricanes, as well as the acceleration of sea-level rise. It further argues that the DOE's analysis of temperature extremes is misleading by focusing on the 1930s Dust Bowl era without global context and that its assessment of wildfires in the western U.S. is incomplete. Finally, the document disputes the DOE's claims regarding solar variations and the validity of extreme event attribution (EEA) methodologies, while arguing that the DOE's use of GDP to downplay disaster costs ignores the increasing physical hazards of climate change.

The document argues that EU and UK fisheries management has failed to rebuild depleted fish stocks, often exceeding scientific advice to avoid short-term economic disruptions. It highlights the risk of 'phantom recoveries' where stock assessments overestimate productivity. To break the cycle of overfishing and 'choke' risks in mixed fisheries, the authors recommend setting Total Allowable Catches (TACs) strictly in line with scientific advice, implementing rigorous rebuilding plans with remote electronic monitoring, and reducing TACs for healthy stocks to protect depleted bycatch species.

The document argues that carbon offsets are scientifically flawed and act as a barrier to necessary emissions reductions, exposing companies to significant legal risks including consumer protection lawsuits, regulatory enforcement, and shareholder actions.

The briefing contends that the IPCC's mitigation pathways are skewed by economic assumptions in integrated assessment models (IAMs) and political pressures during the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) negotiation process. It argues that avoiding a 1.5°C overshoot is imperative to prevent irreversible harm and that the most feasible, cost-effective path is a rapid phaseout of fossil fuels combined with scaling renewables and reducing energy demand. The document warns that reliance on CCS, BECCS, and DACCS is a dangerous gamble, as these technologies are unproven at scale, costly, and may prolong fossil fuel use while threatening food security and biodiversity.

The document is a formal statement signed by 271 experts supporting the US EPA's 2016 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) risk value for ethylene oxide. The signatories argue that the IRIS value represents the best available science and was developed through a transparent, peer-reviewed process. They specifically oppose the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's (TCEQ) alternative risk value, claiming it underestimates cancer risk by 2000-fold, ignores evidence linking ethylene oxide to breast cancer in women, and lacks transparency. Additionally, the authors call for the EPA to consider cumulative health risks and environmental justice for marginalized communities living near industrial polluters.

The document argues that the PMRA's re-evaluation of glyphosate is flawed due to the dismissal of critical evidence concerning ecological risks, human health impacts, and the inefficiency of proposed risk management strategies.

A coalition of environmental and animal welfare organizations urges the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to withdraw proposed incidental harassment authorizations (IHAs) for five industrial seismic surveys off the U.S. East Coast. The document argues that NMFS used outdated scientific thresholds to underestimate the 'take' of marine mammals, failed to account for cumulative impacts of multiple surveys, and ignored significant harm to prey species and acoustic habitats. It specifically highlights the risk to the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale, asserting that the proposed activity could be a "tipping point" for the species' survival. The coalition further claims that the proposed mitigation measures, such as seasonal closures and visual monitoring, are insufficient and not based on the best available science.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and partner organizations argue that the PMRA's re-evaluation of glyphosate is flawed due to the dismissal of critical evidence regarding biodiversity loss, human health risks, and the inefficiency of current risk mitigation strategies.

The document evaluates the FDEP's proposed revisions to water quality criteria for 81 harmful chemical substances. It argues that the FDEP's reliance on Monte Carlo simulations is premature and flawed, leading to criteria that are substantially less protective than U.S. EPA recommendations. The author highlights failures to protect sensitive populations, including children and subsistence fishers, and criticizes the proposed compliance monitoring plan as inadequate.