Search Climate Insights Directory

The report calculates that between 1882 and 2002, ExxonMobil emitted 21.53 billion tonnes of carbon equivalent, representing approximately 5% of global CO2 emissions. It argues that the company has actively undermined climate science and the Kyoto Protocol despite increasing production to record levels after scientific consensus on human-induced climate change was established. The findings link these emissions to 3.4%-3.7% of human-attributable global temperature increases and 2% of sea-level rise, with the latter projected to reach 3.2%-3.6% by the year 2200.

The document examines the role of International Financial Institutions (IFIs), including multilateral development banks and export credit agencies, in financing large-scale extractive projects. It argues that these investments frequently lead to environmental disasters, human rights abuses, and the marginalization of indigenous peoples while failing to alleviate poverty. Through case studies in Peru, Colombia, the Philippines, Laos, Romania, Chad, Cameroon, Papua New Guinea, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Lithuania, the report illustrates the 'resource curse' and the failure of the export-led development model. It concludes by recommending a gradual phase-out of IFI lending for extractive industries and a shift toward renewable energy and community-led sustainable initiatives.

The report by Friends of the Earth International contends that IFIs, including multilateral development banks and export credit agencies, facilitate a destructive export-led development model. Through various case studies in countries like Peru, Colombia, and the Philippines, the document illustrates how these investments lead to environmental catastrophes, human rights violations, and the marginalization of indigenous peoples and women. It specifically highlights the contradiction between IFI funding of fossil fuels and global climate goals, ultimately recommending a phased withdrawal from extractive sectors in favor of decentralized renewable energy initiatives.

Amory B. Lovins challenges the claim that a U.S. hydrogen economy requires a fourfold expansion of nuclear power. He argues that fuel cells will accelerate the decline of nuclear power by providing cheaper energy services. Lovins asserts that the hydrogen needs for the U.S. highway vehicle fleet could be met by wind turbines in North and South Dakota, and that an orderly transition to hydrogen would require less capital, land, and fossil fuels than a business-as-usual oil-based scenario. He further contends that wind power is more cost-competitive than new nuclear plants and that distributed energy resources offer greater economic value than centralized power stations.

Friends of the Earth International opposes the continuation of GATS negotiations, asserting that the agreement grants transnational corporations excessive rights at the expense of national environmental and social policies. The document highlights how GATS limits the right of governments to legislate, particularly regarding essential public services and natural resource management. It specifically warns that expanding GATS into energy, water, and tourism sectors could lead to irreversible ecological damage and the forced privatization of basic human needs. The organization demands the exclusion of public services and extractive industries from GATS disciplines and the implementation of strong environmental exemptions.

The report argues that the WTO system is biased toward transnational corporations, which use their access to governments and the WTO Secretariat to promote rules that undermine national environmental and health standards. Through case studies, it details how this influence manifests in the push for GMO acceptance, the restriction of essential medicines via the TRIPS agreement, the promotion of water and energy privatization through GATS, and the use of investment treaties to challenge public interest regulations. The authors call for a moratorium on further trade negotiations and an independent assessment of the social and environmental impacts of 'free trade'.

The document examines the EIB's environmental framework, highlighting contradictions where the bank claims to support EU climate goals while continuing to fund fossil fuels and aviation. It details the EIB's 2002 and 2004 environmental statements, its internal organizational structure for environmental assessment, and a series of reform demands from NGOs to increase transparency and accountability.

The document outlines the causes and consequences of global climate change, highlighting the role of greenhouse gas emissions and the influence of the fossil fuel lobby. It categorizes career paths for scientists and engineers into four areas of positive contribution: understanding the problem, technological solutions, economic solutions, and social/political solutions, while warning against the influence of vested interests.

The document argues that corporate influence prioritizes short-term profit over environmental protection and human rights, leading to the weakening of multilateral environmental agreements. Through four case studies, it details how the biotechnology, forestry, and fossil fuel industries manipulate policy, promote commercialized versions of nature, and pressure governments to subordinate environmental standards to free trade rules.

The Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) of 1935 prevents utility holding companies from using profits from regulated activities to subsidize unregulated businesses. The Union of Concerned Scientists warns that repealing PUHCA could lead to market consolidation, increased rates, and the suppression of renewable energy in favor of fossil fuels.

The document asserts that human use of fossil fuels has disrupted the Earth's climate balance, leading to a one degree Fahrenheit increase in global mean temperature over the last century. While some regions like the Midwest might see initial benefits such as increased crop yields, the text warns that failure to reduce emissions could lead to temperature increases of 5 to 10 °F, resulting in severe consequences for the U.S. and dire outcomes for poor developing countries.

The document calls for a five-year phase-out of all IFI funding for mining and fossil fuel projects, including a prompt moratorium on new projects in ecologically sensitive areas, indigenous territories, and conflict zones. It argues that such investments exacerbate poverty, human rights abuses, and climate change while failing to provide guaranteed economic growth. The author proposes shifting IFI portfolios toward decentralized renewable energy and energy efficiency to support poor communities and mitigate global warming.

The document highlights a contradiction between the IPCC's warnings of devastating climate impacts and the US government's focus on using budget surpluses for tax cuts. It argues that the cost of investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy is a small fraction of the projected $3 trillion surplus and is far lower than the future costs of climate damage.

SGR argues that the UK government's approach to climate change is too cautious and fails to challenge the unsustainable nature of economic growth. The organization advocates for a 'Contraction and Convergence' model for global emissions, a shift in taxation from labour to resource use, and the complete replacement of fossil fuels and nuclear power with renewables. SGR specifically criticizes the government's reliance on 'accounting tricks' for non-CO2 gases, the lack of restrictions on air travel, and the potential dangers of climate engineering technologies.

The report presents a taxonomy of future global scenarios divided into three classes: Conventional Worlds, Barbarization, and Great Transitions. It argues that while current trends in population growth, economic expansion, and technological change drive the system, human agency and policy choices can steer the world away from collapse and toward a sustainable paradigm. The authors contrast 'business-as-usual' trajectories with visionary transitions that prioritize equity and ecological health over material growth.

The report argues that a transition to a renewable-based energy system is technically and economically feasible. The FFES demonstrates that through aggressive energy efficiency improvements, fuel switching, and the adoption of solar, wind, and biomass energy, global CO2 emissions can be reduced to zero by 2100. The analysis emphasizes that such a transition could be achieved at costs similar to or lower than 'business-as-usual' scenarios, provided there is strong policy leadership and international cooperation to overcome market barriers and address economic inequities between the North and South.

The document warns that human beings and the natural world are on a 'collision course' due to the degradation of the atmosphere, water, oceans, soil, and forests. It argues that the earth's finite capacity to provide food and energy is being overwhelmed by unrestrained population growth and overconsumption by developed nations. To avert catastrophe, the authors advocate for a transition from fossil fuels to inexhaustible energy sources, the stabilization of the human population through voluntary family planning, the elimination of poverty, and the diversion of war funding—estimated at over $1 trillion annually—toward environmental stewardship.

The report analyzes four energy scenarios for the US up to 2030: a Reference case, a Market case, an Environmental case, and a Climate Stabilization case. It finds that shifting toward efficiency and renewables can lead to net economic savings of up to $2.3 trillion and dramatic reductions in CO2 emissions. The authors propose a comprehensive policy framework based on harnessing market forces, establishing efficiency standards, and increasing R&D investment to move the US away from its current reliance on polluting fossil fuels.

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) calls for a decisive U.S. energy policy to address global warming, urban air pollution, and economic competitiveness. The primary recommendation is to prioritize energy efficiency through tax strategies, such as a carbon dioxide tax and phased-in gasoline taxes, and the removal of fossil fuel subsidies. The report also advocates for stimulating renewable energy sources, halting deforestation, and leading international efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions, including a total phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

The pilot study, conducted by the University of Siena, surveyed experts in Belgium and France across two waves between December 2023 and December 2024. Findings indicate high expert support for renewable energy, green hydrogen, and energy storage, while support for blue hydrogen, gas, coal, and oil remains low. There is a strong consensus that the economic benefits of clean technology investment outweigh short-term costs. While a majority of experts believe governments should do more to address climate change, the perceived importance of climate change as a top issue for voters decreased over time, particularly in Belgium, as concerns over defense and security increased.