Search Climate Insights Directory

The document identifies a shift from outright climate denialism to 'strategic skepticism,' where influential entities—including fossil fuel companies and right-wing populist movements—undermine climate action by questioning the economic efficiency and causes of climate change. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of this disinformation, which is disseminated through social media, corporate sustainability reports, and interpersonal networks. The report argues that this environment erodes public trust in climate science and creates a cycle of political inaction. To combat this, the authors recommend standardized carbon reporting legislation, legal action against 'greenwashing,' the creation of multi-stakeholder coalitions, and the enhancement of scientific and media literacy for both the public and officials.

The report identifies a shift from outright climate denial to 'strategic doubt,' where powerful economic and political actors—including fossil fuel companies and right-wing populist movements—deliberately spread misleading narratives to obstruct climate action. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of this misinformation, which is disseminated through social media, traditional media, and corporate sustainability reports. This environment erodes public trust and creates a feedback loop of scientific denial and political inaction. The document recommends four key policy interventions: legislation for standardized carbon reporting and content labeling, litigation against greenwashing, the formation of counter-alliances by civil society, and the promotion of scientific and media literacy.

The document identifies a shift from absolute climate denial to 'strategic skepticism,' where powerful economic and political actors intentionally spread misleading narratives to obstruct climate action. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of this disinformation, which erodes public trust in science and creates a feedback loop of political inaction. To counter this, the report recommends standardized carbon reporting legislation, litigation against greenwashing, the formation of multi-stakeholder coalitions, and enhanced scientific and media literacy.

The report identifies a shift from outright climate denialism to 'strategic skepticism,' where powerful economic and political actors sow doubt about the feasibility and cost of climate solutions. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of this misinformation, which is disseminated through corporate reports, lobbies, and social media, ultimately eroding public trust and delaying climate action. The document recommends four key policy levers: standardized carbon reporting legislation, litigation against greenwashing, the creation of multi-stakeholder coalitions, and enhanced science and media literacy.

Project Drawdown emphasizes the necessity of bold, science-based action to address the climate crisis. The organization focuses on identifying and freely sharing solutions with proven effectiveness and scalability, while warning against the tendency to invest in unproven schemes over ready-to-go solutions.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed on December 10, 2024, formalizes the association of the Center for Climate and Resilience Science (CR2) with the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI). The agreement focuses on enhancing regional cooperation in Latin America and the Caribbean across several key domains, including climate science, resilience, biodiversity, and the science-policy interface. The parties commit to exchanging scientific data, developing joint funding proposals, and creating capacity-building programs to address global environmental change.

This report by QuotaClimat examines how climate disinformation has moved from social media fringes into mainstream news outlets, particularly in France. It identifies structural vulnerabilities in the media industry—such as financial crises, the rise of 'infotainment', and a regulatory vacuum—that allow anti-science narratives to proliferate. The document argues that news media, despite their perceived credibility, often act as channels for disinformation through 'false balance' and selective framing. It concludes by advocating for a new legislative framework in France to mandate environmental coverage standards and strengthen the role of the regulator, Arcom.

The author argues that the US House Appropriations Subcommittee's Fiscal Year 25 budget proposal for the Department of the Interior is a 'political theater' that endangers natural resources and public health through budget cuts and 'poison pill' policy riders.

The document serves as a '101' guide for journalists to report on climate change, explaining the difference between weather and climate, the primary causes of global warming, and the impacts of extreme weather. It offers specific phrasing to help reporters connect current events to climate change and distinguishes between mitigation and adaptation strategies. Additionally, it provides professional guidance on avoiding greenwashing, handling climate deniers, and centering climate justice in reporting, while emphasizing that climate coverage is based on scientific consensus rather than activism.

The document is a financial record of funding for the Basque Centre for Climate Change in 2024, listing various grants and contracts from international, national, and regional bodies. Key funders include the European Commission, the Basque Government (Eusko Jaurlaritza), and the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MICINN). The funding supports a wide array of projects focusing on climate science, biodiversity, agri-food systems, and urban transitions, with individual project grants ranging from small amounts to over 2 million euros.

Reclaim Finance criticizes the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) for becoming the top global financier of fossil fuels, providing US$40.6 billion in financing last year. The organization highlights significant loopholes in RBC's October 2020 coal policy, which excludes only new clients and uses high revenue thresholds (60%) that fail to capture the majority of coal mining and power companies. The document details RBC's continued support for coal developers like Glencore and RWE, as well as utilities in the US and Canada that lack credible coal phase-out plans, urging the bank to adopt a mandatory coal exit by 2030 in the OECD and 2040 globally.

The document outlines a comprehensive framework to integrate Gender, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) into the IAI's operations. It defines eight operational goals, ranging from improving hiring and funding processes to increasing the visibility of equity-seeking groups in global environmental change research. The plan includes specific actions such as requiring EDI and mentoring plans for all funded research proposals after 2023, developing evaluation rubrics to mitigate bias, and establishing an Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Advisory Committee.

The brief asserts that Defendants had actual knowledge of the catastrophic risks of fossil fuel combustion as early as the late 1950s, confirmed through internal research and industry-wide consensus. It details a coordinated strategy to manufacture doubt via public relations campaigns, funding of contrarian scientists, and the use of 'shadow groups' to undermine scientific consensus. The document highlights a contradiction where companies protected their own physical assets from sea-level rise while publicly denying such risks. Finally, it argues that current 'net zero' pledges and natural gas promotions constitute ongoing greenwashing and deception.

The 2023 IPIE expert survey of 289 researchers across 54 countries identifies the availability of accurate information and diversity of opinion as critical features of a healthy information environment. Social media platforms and politicians are viewed as the primary threats globally, though specific concerns vary by political regime: experts in democratic systems emphasize foreign interference and climate misinformation, while those studying autocratic systems highlight threats from central governments and gender-related misinformation. A significant majority of respondents believe the information environment will worsen by 2024, citing a lack of platform data access as a major barrier to research and a lack of accountability for social media companies as a key policy failure.

The IAI's 2022 Gender, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) Policy aims to increase the participation and leadership of underrepresented groups—including women, Indigenous Peoples, persons with disabilities, racialized groups, and LGBTQ+ communities—in science and capacity building. The policy outlines five primary objectives: promoting EDI in science, mainstreaming EDI in IAI activities, reducing biases in project selection, establishing inclusive research environments, and increasing regional capacities to improve EDI. It introduces requirements for EDI clauses in grant agreements, EDI training for peer-review panels to combat unconscious bias, and the promotion of work-life balance. The policy is grounded in the need for diverse perspectives to solve global environmental change challenges and aligns with the UN Sustainable Development Goal 5.

The report details the evolution of the Environmental Integrity Group (EIG) from its founding in 2000 to its role in the Paris Agreement. It highlights how the EIG's unique composition—including both developed and developing nations—enables it to facilitate compromises on technical and political issues such as climate finance, transparency, and carbon markets. The document also examines the individual contributions of member states like the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Monaco, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and Georgia to global climate science and policy.

The study tracks Total's transition from receiving early warnings of catastrophic global warming in 1971 to a strategy of promoting scientific doubt in the late 1980s, and finally to a position of public acceptance of climate science coupled with policy delay by the late 1990s. It also notes Exxon's role in coordinating an international campaign via IPIECA to dispute climate science and weaken policy starting in the 1980s.

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) reports its 2022 impacts, which include hosting 26 Congressional briefings, launching the Beneficial Electrification Toolkit, and developing a Climate Solutions Map. The organization focuses on educating policymakers, providing technical assistance to rural utilities for clean energy, and supporting the next generation of climate leaders through initiatives like its first scholarship to a historically Black university (HBCU) student.

The Center for Climate Integrity asserts that ExxonMobil possessed internal knowledge of the catastrophic impacts of fossil fuels as early as the 1970s while simultaneously funding a decades-long campaign to discredit climate science. The statement highlights a discrepancy between internal scientific consensus and public advertorials, the use of 'shadow groups' to oppose government action, and the company's current production plans which contradict the goals of the Paris Agreement.

The Center for Climate Integrity presents evidence that Chevron and its predecessors were aware of the catastrophic effects of fossil fuels as early as 1980 but funded campaigns to discredit climate science and sow public uncertainty. The document highlights a contradiction between Chevron's public claims of leadership in clean energy and its actual investment patterns, noting that only 0.2 percent of annual capital expenditure was spent on low-carbon energy between 2010 and 2018. Additionally, it points to patents filed by Chevron and Texaco in 1974 for drilling equipment designed for warming Arctic conditions, suggesting the company prepared for the physical impacts of climate change while publicly denying them.