Search Climate Insights Directory

Colorado is experiencing a rise in billion-dollar climate disasters, with an increase from 1.7 annually since 1980 to 4.4 per year between 2020 and 2024. The state faces critical threats from wildfires, flooding, avalanches, and drought, which impact public health, infrastructure, and the economy. Federal agencies including NOAA and FEMA provide essential forecasting, research, and funding for mitigation, such as the $13.8 million BRIC grant for the Greely Water Pipeline. However, proposed FY26 budget cuts and the cancellation of programs like BRIC threaten to shutter research labs in Boulder, eliminate cooperative university partnerships, and reduce funding for climate-smart agriculture and critical mineral surveys, potentially increasing the vulnerability of both local communities and military installations such as Buckley Space Force Base and Fort Carson.

Washington State faces escalating risks from drought, wildfires, extreme heat, and coastal flooding, which threaten its economy, ecosystems, and critical US military installations. While federal agencies like NOAA and FEMA provide essential forecasting, funding, and disaster recovery services, the report argues that recent and proposed budget cuts for FY2026—including the termination of key research laboratories and the reduction of grant programs—significantly degrade the state's capacity to prepare for and respond to these hazards.

Hawaiʻi faces significant economic and security risks from sea level rise, wildfires, and drought, which threaten both civilian infrastructure and critical US military hubs like Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam. While federal agencies provide essential monitoring and recovery support, proposed FY 2026 budget cuts would eliminate key programs such as the Hawaiʻi Sea Grant and the Pacific Islands Climate Adaptation Science Center, potentially reducing disaster relief and hindering climate adaptation efforts.

Colombia faces a projected gas supply deficit starting in 2030, as national production declines and import capacity becomes insufficient. The report argues that this vulnerability can be mitigated by reducing demand through a 14% increase in industrial energy efficiency and the electrification of residential cooking and water heating. Specifically, replacing 10% of gas stoves and 30% of water heaters with electric alternatives could significantly lower demand. The authors recommend a planned, just transition that includes reorienting subsidies toward electrification, implementing a national equipment replacement program, and avoiding long-term fossil fuel lock-ins like fracking.

The COP30 summit in Belém concluded with the "Mutirão global" agreement, which maintained negotiations but postponed key decisions on fossil fuels and adaptation finance. While the summit saw record indigenous participation and significant funding commitments for tropical forests and energy infrastructure, it failed to establish a clear mechanism to limit warming to 1.5°C and lacked a process for reviewing Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). The document urges reporters to translate these diplomatic results into human-centric stories focusing on vulnerable communities and territorial rights.

A coalition of environmental organisations criticises Nestlé for withdrawing from the Dairy Methane Action Alliance (DMAA), arguing that the move contradicts the company's stated climate commitments. The authors highlight that dairy and livestock account for 37% of Nestlé's total greenhouse gas emissions and urge the company to set a science-aligned methane reduction target of at least 30% by 2030, improve reporting transparency, and prioritise emissions reductions over carbon insetting.

A coalition of businesses, investors, and NGOs opposes proposals by the Council of the EU and European Parliament to delay the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) by another year and conduct a review in April 2026. The signatories argue that such delays create market instability, waste existing corporate investments in compliance, and postpone urgent action against global forest loss and its associated climate and biodiversity risks.

The People's Summit declaration identifies the capitalist mode of production and transnational corporations as the primary drivers of the climate crisis. It rejects market-based 'false solutions' and calls for a transition based on popular sovereignty, the recognition of ancestral knowledge, and the redistribution of wealth from the Global North to the Global South. The document emphasizes the intersection of climate action with feminism, anti-imperialism, and the protection of indigenous territories.

The Peoples’ Summit declaration identifies the capitalist mode of production and transnational corporations as the primary causes of the climate crisis. It rejects market-based 'false solutions' and the current model of multilateralism, calling instead for a 'just, sovereign and popular transition.' Key demands include the demarcation of indigenous lands, popular agrarian reform, the end of fossil fuel exploitation, and the redirection of military spending toward climate repair. The document emphasizes feminist justice, the recognition of ancestral knowledge, and the need for international climate finance to bypass institutions like the IMF and World Bank to address the socio-environmental debt owed to the global South.

The People's Summit declaration argues that the capitalist mode of production and transnational corporations are the root causes of the climate crisis and environmental racism. It rejects market-based 'false solutions' and the current multilateral system, calling instead for the recognition of ancestral knowledge, the protection of indigenous territories, and a sovereign, popular energy transition. The document demands the end of fossil fuel extraction, the redistribution of wealth from the global north to the south as socio-environmental debt, and the implementation of agroecology and feminist care work as central to planetary survival.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) contends that the Department of Energy's (DOE) "Restoring Reliability: Coal Recommissioning And Modernization" funding opportunity redirects up to $350 million from carbon capture pilot programs to maintain aging coal plants without requiring carbon capture installation. CATF argues that targeting plants scheduled for retirement before 2032 makes carbon capture infeasible due to the 3-7 year construction timeline and the 12-20 year operational period needed to recover capital costs. Furthermore, the document states that allocating $350 million across up to five plants is too diluted, as a single large-scale retrofit often exceeds $500 million. CATF recommends that the DOE limit eligibility to plants expected to operate beyond 2040 and mandate explicit capture performance requirements to meet the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) mandate for two coal-based carbon capture demonstrations.

The document argues that Europe needs a more integrated financial toolbox to bridge the 'valley of death' for cleantech innovators. It recommends increasing the budget for Horizon Europe to €200 billion and the ECF InvestEU guarantee to €50 billion, while calling for binding budgets for clean transition windows and the use of retail financial instruments to stimulate demand from end-consumers.

Viet Nam, the Philippines, and Indonesia are transitioning from coal-reliant economies to renewable energy hotspots, collectively accounting for nearly 60% of ASEAN's power demand and emissions. While all three have set ambitious 2030 targets for renewables to exceed 50% of installed capacity, they face bottlenecks in permitting, grid infrastructure, and financial risk. The report highlights that solar-plus-battery integration significantly improves internal rates of return (IRR), particularly in Indonesia, and emphasizes the role of market reforms—such as Viet Nam's Direct Power Purchase Agreements and the Philippines' removal of foreign ownership restrictions—in attracting private capital.

The document argues that forests are essential 'natural insurance' against climate change, yet they remain underfunded, receiving only 4% of international climate finance. The author calls for tropical countries to prioritize zero deforestation and for high-income nations to transform consumption patterns and supply chains. The text advocates for a sustainable bioeconomy and binding accountability mechanisms, citing the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) as a potential starting point for paying for standing forests.

The report finds that the EU is not on track to meet its 2030 interconnection targets, with 80% of the power system expected to miss the goal. To reach an optimal grid by 2040, Europe needs to nearly double its interconnection capacity, adding 151 GW. This expansion requires an estimated €150 billion in investment, leaving a €30 billion public funding gap in the proposed 2028-2034 Connecting Europe Facility for Energy (CEF-E) budget.

The study finds a substantial disconnect between African climate commitments (NDCs) and national development blueprints (NDPs), with NDCs focusing on climate-centric sectors like energy and forestry while NDPs prioritize economic growth, finance, and the private sector. This 'parallel policy framework' is driven by institutional fragmentation, where NDCs are often externally funded and led by environment ministries, whereas NDPs are domestically anchored and led by economic planning ministries. The authors recommend a 'whole-of-government' approach to embed climate goals into national budgets and development strategies to maximize socio-economic co-benefits.

The report argues that inadequate housing is a critical determinant of health for Indigenous peoples in Canada, exacerbating respiratory illnesses and mental distress. It introduces the concept of 'Healthy Energy Homes'—dwellings that are energy-efficient, climate-resilient, and supportive of holistic well-being. The authors identify systemic institutional barriers, including fragmented government responsibilities, rigid and insufficient funding models (described as 'firefighting'), and significant capacity gaps within communities. To address these, the report recommends a coordinated 'single-window' government approach, the co-development of policies with Indigenous leaders, long-term investment agreements, and flexible funding models that prioritize holistic outcomes over prescriptive activities. It highlights successful community-led initiatives and international models from Ireland and New Zealand as evidence that integrated housing and health policies can generate significant social and economic returns.

The report advocates for 'Indigenous Healthy Energy Homes'—housing that is energy-efficient, climate-resilient, and supportive of occupant well-being—as a means to improve health outcomes for First Nations, Inuit, and Métis people while contributing to Canada's net-zero goals. It identifies current government solutions as fragmented and disconnected from local realities, often failing to account for long-term health costs and greenhouse gas emissions associated with inadequate housing. The authors call for a shift from one-time project funding to long-term, flexible, and self-determined financial partnerships. Key recommendations include the creation of intergovernmental coordination mechanisms, the co-design of policies with Indigenous leaders, and the implementation of holistic measurement tools to track social, cultural, and environmental impacts of housing projects.

The report argues that inadequate housing for First Nations, Inuit, and Métis people in Canada creates severe health burdens and climate vulnerabilities, which are exacerbated by fragmented government accountability and rigid funding models. It introduces the 'Healthy Energy Homes' concept—housing that is energy efficient, climate resilient, and supports well-being—as a way to achieve co-benefits for public health and Canada's net-zero goals. The authors recommend a shift toward long-term, flexible, and Indigenous-led investment agreements, the creation of interdepartmental coordination mechanisms, and the adoption of outcomes-based procurement to replace current 'firefighter' funding approaches.

The report advocates for 'Healthy Energy Homes'—housing that is energy efficient, climate resilient, and supports inhabitant well-being—as a way to simultaneously improve Indigenous health outcomes and contribute to Canada's net zero goals. It argues that current government approaches are fragmented and siloed, failing to value the long-term health costs and emissions associated with inadequate housing. The authors recommend a shift toward co-developed, long-term, and flexible financial partnerships between governments and Indigenous rights holders to overcome capacity constraints and ensure cultural relevance in housing solutions.