Search Climate Insights Directory

The document outlines a collaborative journalism initiative focused on the climate emergency, providing a list of republishable stories, social media strategies, and guidelines for partner outlets.

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 outlines how the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has begun integrating climate change into its human rights oversight, specifically regarding the rights of Indigenous Peoples and people of African descent. It details specific recommendations made to El Salvador, Mexico, Guyana, and the Netherlands, while noting that climate-related outputs remain a small fraction of the Committee's total work. The report also highlights the influence of UN Special Rapporteurs, the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, and NGOs in pushing for a human rights-based approach to environmental racism and climate justice.

The document serves as a bibliography of resources detailing how the fossil fuel industry, trade associations, and third-party intermediaries have worked to obstruct climate policy and discredit climate science. It categorizes these resources into themes such as corporate influence on policy, the funding of climate deniers, and the suppression of activism. Additionally, it includes specific quotes from industry entities like Peabody Energy and ExxonMobil that illustrate contradictory or denialist stances on climate change.

The document argues that a small number of fossil fuel and cement producers, termed 'Carbon Majors', are responsible for a significant portion of global greenhouse gas emissions and the subsequent climate crisis. It details how these entities' activities and disinformation campaigns have led to severe human rights violations, particularly in the Philippines, where climate-induced disasters like Typhoon Haiyan have caused immense loss of life and livelihood. The text leverages international human rights law, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the 'Carbon Majors' study to establish a framework for corporate accountability and legal liability for climate damages.

The report 'Toxic Accounts' by Clean Creatives examines how BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell shifted their marketing strategies from 2020 to 2024. The analysis finds that these companies moved away from net-zero ambitions and 'greenwashing' toward a strategy of 'fossil fuel dominance,' emphasizing energy security and the indispensability of oil and gas. The document details the use of 'false solutions'—such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), blue/gray hydrogen, and certain biofuels—to justify continued fossil fuel production. It highlights specific campaign evolutions, such as BP's shift from 'greening companies' to 'energy security' and ExxonMobil's 'Breaking Free' anti-EV campaign, arguing that these narratives delay the clean energy transition to prioritize short-term shareholder returns.

The report argues that the UAE used extensive PR campaigns to rebrand itself as a climate leader to secure the hosting of COP28, while simultaneously planning to expand oil and gas production. It identifies 18 agencies that worked for the UAE, COP28, ADNOC, or Masdar between 2021 and 2023, noting that many of these firms simultaneously held contracts with major fossil fuel polluters. The document details specific tactics used to manipulate public opinion, including the editing of Wikipedia pages by COP28 staff and the use of AI-generated social media bots for astroturfing. It concludes by calling on the creative industry to stop working with fossil fuel clients to support a genuine energy transition.

A group of over 100 sustainability experts and advocates is publicly demanding that Edelman, the world's largest PR firm, drop all fossil fuel clients, including ExxonMobil and Shell. The signers argue that Edelman's work for these companies spreads climate denial and misinformation, which obstructs government action and contradicts the firm's stated commitment to the Paris Agreement.

Over 400 scientists have called on Hill+Knowlton Strategies and its parent company WPP plc to drop fossil fuel clients, arguing that representing companies like Saudi Aramco and ExxonMobil is incompatible with the agency's role in leading public communications for the COP27 UN climate talks. The signatories claim the agency has enabled disinformation campaigns and that its clients' plans to increase production contradict the goals of the UNFCCC.

A group of creators and experts argues that Edelman's simultaneous representation of COP30 hosts and at least 10 fossil fuel polluters, including Shell, creates a conflict of interest that threatens the integrity of climate communications. The signers call on UN leaders and the Brazilian government to ensure COP30 updates are untainted by oil industry influence, suggesting Brazil should terminate its relationship with Edelman if the firm does not drop its fossil fuel clients.

The report presents the 2024 South African F-List, detailing 42 contracts between local agencies and fossil fuel clients, and highlights the reputational risks of such partnerships. It critiques the role of PR in masking the environmental and health impacts of companies like Sasol and TotalEnergies, while calling for industry awards like The Loeries to stop rewarding fossil fuel advertising.

A collective statement from individuals across various faith traditions calling on the U.S. Congress to reject a proposed 'fossil fuel immunity bill'. The authors argue that such legislation would shield corporations from legal accountability for climate damages, violating the moral principle that those who cause harm must be held responsible. They contend that the bill would block 'polluter pays' laws and shift the financial burden of climate disasters from the responsible corporations to taxpayers and affected families.

The document analyzes Brazil's unique energy landscape, where a predominantly renewable electricity mix coexists with a significant reliance on petroleum for transport and a growing oil production sector. It highlights the tension between the government's climate commitments and its plans to expand oil production, particularly in the Equatorial Margin. The briefing suggests that Brazil can leverage its G20 and COP30 leadership to promote the reduction of fossil fuel subsidies and use oil revenues to fund green innovation and forest conservation, while recommending the introduction of an upstream carbon tax to manage environmental externalities.

Climate TRACE estimates that anthropogenic methane emissions in 2025 were just over 410 million tonnes, with agriculture, fossil energy, and waste accounting for 97% of the total. The report argues that slashing methane is the most impactful way to keep global warming under 2 degrees Celsius due to the gas's powerful near-term warming effect. It identifies specific actionable opportunities: reducing methane intensity in oil and gas production (particularly in the US and Mexico), capturing coal mine methane, targeting a small number of high-emitting landfills, and addressing enteric fermentation and rice cultivation in agriculture.

The author contends that the 'No' campaign against the Australian Indigenous Voice to Parliament is not a grassroots movement but a strategic operation by the Atlas Network, a global infrastructure of neoliberal think-tanks. The paper links this effort to a long-term pattern of climate disinformation and opposition to environmental policy, suggesting that the Voice is opposed because it could empower Indigenous communities to challenge fossil-fuel projects. The author details the interlocking memberships between the Atlas Network, the Mont Pelerin Society, and Australian political figures, arguing that these networks use 'astroturfing' and disinformation to shift public opinion in favor of corporate interests.

The document argues that finance professionals can significantly impact the climate crisis by directing corporate funds toward climate solutions and divesting from fossil fuels. It asserts that divesting does not lead to negative financial performance, citing BlackRock's findings that institutions with strong environmental records often have better social impact and corporate governance. The guide offers specific steps for banking, lending, insurance, and cash management, such as prioritizing banks that prohibit loans to coal and oil industries and shifting employee retirement plans to climate-safe options. It also lists various reporting standards and tools, including SASB, TCFD, and GRI, to help companies disclose climate risk and greenhouse gas emissions.

The document outlines how corporate government relations specialists can align company policy with climate goals. It emphasizes the necessity of advocating for supportive legislation, such as clean energy standards, and ensuring that lobbying expenditures and trade association memberships do not contradict climate ambitions. Key recommendations include tracking climate-related policies, disclosing climate risks, avoiding 'double-dipping' lobbyists who represent the fossil fuel industry, and utilizing internal carbon pricing to maintain accountability.

The report analyzes the influence of fossil fuel funding on political decision-making, arguing that the industry uses financial leverage to obstruct climate action and maintain the dominance of carbon-intensive energy sources. It details the mechanisms of this influence, including direct funding to political parties and the role of industry-backed lobbying, and calls for greater transparency and a shift toward sustainable energy investments.

Global Witness warns that new US oil and gas production is forecast to dwarf that of other nations, potentially producing more than twice the current output of Saudi Arabia by the end of the next decade. The analysis suggests that to avoid the worst climate impacts, global production must drop by 40% over ten years, yet US output is set to rise by 25%. The document calls for the next US president to end fossil fuel subsidies—estimated between $4.6 billion and $649 billion annually—and to stop new extraction on federal lands to facilitate a just transition for workers and communities.

Global Witness highlights that despite Shell's public claims of exiting Russia and writing down its assets, the company may receive over $1 billion from a bid by Novatek for its stake in the Sakhalin-II project. The author contends that 'writing down' assets is a meaningless accounting measure that does not end legal ownership. The document calls for Shell to donate these funds to Ukraine, noting that such a payout would cover more than 10% of the direct damage caused by Russia to Ukraine's energy infrastructure.