Search Climate Insights Directory

The 2016 External Review concludes that the World Resources Institute (WRI) is making strong progress in implementing its 2014-2017 Strategic Plan, with 89 of 96 specific statements of intent rated as 'on track' or 'achieved'. The review highlights WRI's success as a global 'think and do' tank, particularly in its research excellence, the development of open-data platforms like Global Forest Watch and Aqueduct, and its influence on the Paris Agreement and Sustainable Development Goals. While WRI has successfully expanded its global footprint with offices in Brazil, China, India, and Indonesia, the review identifies challenges in securing unrestricted funding, strengthening internal communications, and fully integrating poverty and gender perspectives into programmatic design. It also notes the effectiveness of WRI's matrix management structure, though it suggests further investment in management training to reduce transaction costs and improve coordination.

The Union of Concerned Scientists analyzed 18 strategic US military installations on the East and Gulf coasts, finding that most face significant risks from rising seas. Under a 'highest' scenario of sea level rise, some bases could lose between 75 and 95 percent of their land area by 2100. The report highlights that tidal flooding frequency will increase steeply, and storm surges will reach further inland and with greater depth. It emphasizes the need for high-resolution mapping and regional collaboration, noting that the vulnerability of surrounding low-income and minority communities can further compromise base operations.

The Union of Concerned Scientists proposes a climate resilience framework based on narrowing the 'resilience gap' through combined mitigation and adaptation efforts. The report outlines 15 principles categorized by rigorous science, equitable outcomes, and ambitious common sense to ensure adaptation is scientifically sound and socially just.

This policy brief explores the application of transitional justice frameworks to international climate negotiations. It argues that because climate policy shares similarities with conflict transitions—such as profound loss, interdependence, and disputes over historical responsibility—lessons from transitional justice can help build the legitimacy and trust required for the Paris Agreement's success. The author suggests a balance of 'backwards-oriented' acknowledgments of responsibility and 'forwards-oriented' supports, proposing specific mechanisms such as collective reparations, long-term low-carbon development support, and 'soft accountability' tools like non-binding acknowledgments of historical responsibility.

Friends of the Earth International asserts that the Paris Agreement fails to deliver the scale of action required to limit global warming to 1.5°C, noting that current national pledges could lead to warming of around 3°C. The organization warns that terms like 'climate neutrality' may justify the use of dangerous geoengineering, carbon markets, and nuclear energy. To achieve climate justice, the document advocates for a just global energy transformation characterized by community-owned renewable energy, the blocking of dirty energy projects, and financial support from developed to developing nations.

The report analyzes 'Global Warming's Six Americas'—the Alarmed, Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged, Doubtful, and Dismissive—to determine if moral appeals from religious leaders could engage those currently unconcerned about climate change. It finds that while most Americans value caring for the poor and the environment, few outside the Alarmed and Concerned segments currently view global warming as a moral issue or understand its link to poverty. However, a widespread belief in human stewardship of nature and a general preference for religious over scientific explanations among less-engaged groups suggest that moral framing may be an effective communication strategy.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) advocates for a legally binding UN treaty to end the systemic impunity of transnational corporations (TNCs). The submission argues that the treaty must establish civil and criminal liability for TNCs, their executives, and financiers across global supply chains. FoEI proposes the creation of an independent international court to judge environmental crimes and human rights abuses, emphasizing the need for a hierarchy where human rights obligations prevail over trade and investment agreements, specifically targeting the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism. The document highlights cases of corporate abuse in Nigeria, Brazil, Mozambique, and elsewhere to illustrate the failure of current voluntary standards and national judicial systems.

The document analyzes the tension between the risk-management approach of the UNFCCC and the justice-based demands for compensation regarding climate-induced loss and damage. It evaluates four scientific traits—attributability, irreversibility, unavoidability, and intolerability—concluding that while science can inform risk management, the determination of liability and compensation remains a political and value-based challenge.

The document examines the tension between treating fossil fuel suppliers as polluters and recognizing extraction as a sovereign right for development. It argues that meeting Paris Agreement targets requires leaving a majority of proven reserves in the ground, which would disproportionately impact lower-income regions through the loss of significant resource rents.

Friends of the Earth International concludes that the Paris Agreement fails the 'People's Climate Test' due to its lack of binding emission targets, insufficient financial commitments for developing nations, and the absence of concrete mechanisms for loss and damage. The organization criticizes the agreement for not mentioning renewable energy or the phase-out of fossil fuels, while leaving the door open to 'false solutions' like geo-engineering and carbon markets.

Friends of the Earth International concludes that the Paris Agreement fails to provide climate justice, citing a lack of binding emissions targets for developed nations, insufficient financial commitments for developing countries, and the absence of concrete mechanisms for loss and damage reparations. The organization criticizes the agreement for not mentioning renewable energy or energy efficiency and for leaving the door open to 'false solutions' like carbon markets and geoengineering.

Friends of the Earth International concludes that the Paris Agreement fails the 'People’s Test on Climate' due to a lack of binding emissions targets, insufficient financial commitments for developing nations, and the absence of protections for vulnerable communities. The assessment highlights that the agreement does not mandate a phase-out of fossil fuels, lacks mentions of renewable energy or energy efficiency, and relies on unproven technologies like BECCS. Furthermore, it argues that the agreement weakens the principle of 'Common But Differentiated Responsibilities' and excludes compensation and liability for loss and damage.

The statement criticizes the Paris Agreement for abandoning people and the planet, citing a lack of political ambition and the undue influence of corporate lobbyists. It contrasts this political failure with the rise of a global movement of indigenous peoples, youth, and activists who demand climate justice, agroecology, and community-managed forests over 'false solutions' and corporate greenwashing.

The statement asserts that the Paris climate negotiations were a failure of political leadership, characterized by a lack of ambition and the undue influence of polluting corporations. It highlights the rise of a global movement demanding climate justice, food sovereignty through agroecology, and community-led forest management, contrasting these grassroots efforts with 'false solutions' and cynical deforestation offsets promoted within the UN framework.

The document is a declaration calling for the end of fossil fuel exploration and extraction to address the climate crisis and mass extinction. It demands a just transition to a democratized, 100% renewable energy system, the removal of fossil fuel industry influence from policymaking, and the recognition of the rights of Indigenous and frontline communities.

Friends of the Earth International argues that failing to stop catastrophic climate change will exacerbate poverty, hunger, and conflict, making just climate action a critical peace-building tool. The organization criticizes the French government's state of emergency for restricting civil liberties and cancelling climate justice mobilizations ahead of the December 2015 UN climate negotiations, while asserting that democratic decision-making must be reclaimed from corporate influence.

The report identifies 'climate equity hotspots' along the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts, where projected sea level rise and tidal flooding combine with socioeconomic risks such as poverty and minority population share. It argues that federal and state agencies must prioritize these vulnerable communities in funding and infrastructure investments to ensure an equitable response to climate change. The analysis evaluated thirty-five coastal counties across nine states and provides case studies for five specific locations, including Dorchester County, MD, and Plaquemines Parish, LA, to illustrate the challenges of environmental injustice and sinking lands.

The document critiques industrial agriculture as a primary driver of climate change and social inequality, while presenting agroecology as a viable, small-scale alternative. It specifically attacks 'Climate Smart Agriculture' (CSA) as a corporate-led 'false solution' designed to greenwash industrial practices. The text advocates for a transition toward food sovereignty and the relocalisation of food systems, highlighting the role of women and traditional knowledge in building climate resilience.

The document contrasts industrial agribusiness with agroecology, asserting that the former is a primary driver of climate change and social inequality. It dismisses 'climate-smart agriculture' as a marketing tool for corporations to maintain power structures without addressing the root causes of the climate crisis. Instead, it advocates for a transition to agroecology, which supports small-scale producers, protects biodiversity, and enhances climate resilience. The text highlights the role of women and traditional knowledge in this transition and calls for public policies that shift resources away from industrial meat and crop production toward food sovereignty.

The paper explores the analogy between transitional justice—typically used to transition societies from periods of deep injustice to peace—and the climate change context. It identifies four key similarities: unavoidable interdependence, the inadequacy of current judicial processes, disagreements over the link between past actions and future obligations, and the importance of socio-economic human rights. The author suggests that climate policy could adopt specific transitional justice practices, such as guarantees of non-recurrence, reparations, limited liability, and formal peace processes, to move beyond political stalemates regarding historical responsibility. However, the paper also notes significant limitations, including the fact that climate injustices are ongoing rather than past, the lack of a unified global 'society', and the risk of co-optation by powerful actors.