Search Climate Insights Directory

The report identifies systemic barriers to evidence-based decision-making regarding hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in the U.S., including industry interference in academic and government research, legal loopholes in federal environmental laws, and a lack of transparency regarding chemical use. It highlights how non-disclosure agreements in legal settlements silence affected citizens and hide scientific data. The document provides a framework for communities to seek reliable information and calls for comprehensive laws requiring baseline and ongoing environmental monitoring and full chemical disclosure.

The report examines the role of US forests and forest products in mitigating climate change, emphasizing that a rational policy must look beyond simple sequestration to include the carbon storage and substitution benefits of harvested wood. It analyzes forest carbon stocks and flows, the impact of climate-driven disturbances like wildfire and pests, and the life-cycle carbon benefits of using wood instead of steel or concrete. The authors critique the high transaction costs and measurement uncertainties of project-based carbon offsets, suggesting alternative policies such as information disclosure and updated building codes to promote the use of sustainable forest products.

The review concludes that the Manomet study likely underestimates the net carbon emissions of biomass energy due to overly optimistic assumptions regarding forest regrowth, soil carbon, and fuel sourcing. While the Manomet study suggests utility-scale biomass emissions are higher than coal and natural gas, the review argues that the perceived benefits for small-scale thermal and CHP plants are likely illusory. Key criticisms include the model's reliance on harvesting large trees to maximize regrowth, the omission of soil carbon losses, and the failure to account for indirect land-use effects such as firewood leakage.

The document examines the rapid decline of Arctic sea ice and the potential for geoengineering, specifically solar radiation management, as a last-resort insurance policy. It critiques the 'business-as-usual' approach of Arctic nations that prioritize resource extraction over climate mitigation and proposes that the Arctic Council use its scientific legitimacy and inclusive structure to frame the geoengineering debate and conduct necessary research.

The document consists of several appendices. Appendix A lists Class I areas not evaluated by the EPA. Appendix B compares SO2 and NOx reductions under CAIR versus the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) standard. Appendix C is a detailed scientific critique of the ARIES study, arguing that utility industry claims using ARIES to downplay the health risks of sulfates are not supported by the study's actual data or broader medical literature. Appendix D lists counties remaining in nonattainment for PM2.5 and ozone. Appendix E contains a statement from the Institute of Clean Air Companies on the achievability of NOx and SO2 limits. Appendices F through L provide detailed modeling data, cost summaries, and emission projections for various policy scenarios (CATF11, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23).

The synopsis asserts that the petroleum industry was unequivocally warned of climate change by 1968 and that internal documents from companies like Exxon show a stark contrast between their internal scientific certainty and their public campaigns of disinformation. It highlights that while these companies protected their own infrastructure from rising sea levels and warming, they funded 'AstroTurf' organizations and misinformation plans to ensure the public viewed climate science as uncertain. The document also notes that attribution science now allows for the tracing of specific climate impacts to individual companies, providing a legal basis for accountability.

The document asserts that fossil and biological carbon operate on fundamentally different timescales and cycles, making them non-fungible. While fossil carbon is permanent, biological carbon is subject to rapid fluxes and risks of reversibility from fires, pests, or rising temperatures. The author contends that relying on biological offsets to mitigate fossil emissions is scientifically unsound and practically limited by land area and nutrient requirements, concluding that emissions from both sources must be addressed in parallel rather than through offsetting.

Earthjustice argues that the American Coal Ash Association (ACAA) produced a 'junk science' report by ignoring critical groundwater exposure pathways, manipulating EPA screening levels for arsenic and chromium, and cherry-picking data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to make coal ash appear similar to common soil. The critique highlights that fly ash concentrations of chromium and arsenic can be thousands of times higher than groundwater protection screening levels and notes the ACAA's failure to address risks from particulate matter inhalation.

The petition argues that the routine use of medically important antibiotics (MIAs) in livestock and poultry—specifically for disease prevention and long durations—creates antibiotic-resistant bacteria that threaten human health. It claims that the FDA has a mandatory duty under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to withdraw approvals for uses that are not shown to be safe. The document asserts that current voluntary compliance programs are insufficient and that improved animal husbandry can eliminate the need for routine antibiotic use. It requests that the FDA withdraw specific drug indications, set strict duration limits (e.g., prohibiting use beyond 21 days), implement species-specific data collection via feed-distribution records, and establish sector-specific reduction targets.

The document examines the diverse impacts of climate change in Latin America and the Caribbean, highlighting vulnerabilities in rural communities, women, education, and public health. It discusses the role of ocean warming in collapsing fisheries, the link between deforestation and zoonotic diseases, and the necessity of shifting from technocratic to participatory water governance. The report emphasizes the 'Anthropocene' as a geological era driven by human activity and argues for a transdisciplinary approach to science that integrates local and indigenous knowledge to create effective public policies.

The report concludes that the environmental impact assessment (EIA) for exploration drilling in block ER236 was scientifically inadequate regarding anthropogenic noise. The author argues that the study's determination of 'minor' noise impacts is premature because it failed to include an acoustician on the team and ignored critical factors such as the effects on commercially important fish, prey species, and the physiological impacts on sound-sensitive taxa. Specific failures identified include the omission of Vertical Seismic Profiling (VSP) analysis, the lack of baseline soundscape data, and the failure to model sound propagation in the Indian Ocean, which could affect Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) like the Protea Banks and the Sardine Route. The report also highlights risks to migrating humpback and right whales, as well as nesting sea turtles, and calls for the adoption of the precautionary approach as outlined in IWC Resolution 2018-4.

The report contends that carbon markets focus exclusively on greenhouse gas emissions, failing to account for biophysical processes—such as evapotranspiration and albedo—that make tropical forests critical for cooling the planet. This omission leads to overly conservative credit valuations for tropical nations and indigenous communities, while potentially overvaluing credits from higher latitudes. The authors suggest integrating these biophysical benefits as premium attributes or CO2 equivalents to ensure a just transition and better incentivize large-scale forest conservation.

The report contends that carbon markets focus exclusively on greenhouse gas emissions, ignoring four key biophysical processes—albedo, evapotranspiration, surface roughness, and aerosols—that allow tropical forests to cool the planet. This omission leads to a significant underestimation of the climate mitigation potential of tropical forests, which the authors claim contribute 50% more to global warming prevention than carbon alone. The document highlights that conservative risk-management standards (such as additionality and leakage tests) further penalize tropical forest credits, particularly in High Forest Low Deforestation (HFLD) countries. It proposes that these non-carbon benefits be treated as additional attributes for pricing or eventually quantified as CO2 equivalents to ensure a more equitable transition for indigenous peoples and local communities.

The report contends that carbon markets focus exclusively on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, failing to account for four key biophysical processes—albedo, evapotranspiration, surface roughness, and aerosols—that allow tropical forests to cool the planet. This omission leads to an underestimation of the mitigation potential of tropical forests, which could provide an additional 1.4 to 1.8 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent mitigation per year. The authors argue that this creates an inequitable system that penalizes tropical nations and indigenous communities while overvaluing forests in higher latitudes. To correct this, the document recommends incorporating biophysical effects as additional credit attributes, recognizing 'positive biophysical leakage' that enhances landscape resilience, and developing long-term methods to quantify these benefits as CO2 equivalents.