Search Climate Insights Directory

The November 2019 report by the Center for Climate Change Communication reveals that 73% of registered U.S. voters believe global warming is happening, though beliefs and policy support vary significantly by political party. While there is broad bipartisan support for renewable energy research and the Paris Climate Agreement, deep divisions persist regarding the causes of global warming and the expansion of fossil fuel production. The report also highlights an increase in the importance of global warming as a voting issue for the 2020 presidential election, particularly among Democrats.

The report finds that while a majority of registered U.S. voters believe global warming is happening and human-caused, significant partisan divides persist. There is broad support for clean energy research and carbon pricing, but voters are split on fossil fuel expansion. Global warming has increased in importance as a voting issue for the 2020 presidential election.

The document details Russia's high reliance on fossil fuels, which accounted for 90% of its total energy supply in 2017 and 23.6% of general government revenue. It highlights the dominance of state-owned enterprises like Gazprom and Rosneft, the government's strategy to expand exports to the Asia-Pacific region, and the significant fiscal gap created by the under-taxation of fossil fuel consumption. The report also examines various forms of production and consumption subsidies, as well as the role of the National Welfare Fund in managing windfall revenues.

Brazil's economy is influenced by significant fossil fuel reserves, particularly 'pre-salt' oil, though it is the least dependent on fossil fuels among BRICS nations due to biofuels and hydropower. In 2017, fossil fuel revenues accounted for 6.8% of general government revenue, while subsidies represented 0.3% of GDP. The government continues to seek increased oil and gas production despite climate commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 43% by 2030. Fiscal complexities include high state-level VAT on fuels, significant tax exemptions for production, and the earmarking of royalties for health and education.

The statement criticizes governments in the Global North for declaring climate emergencies without implementing proportional measures, arguing that 'false solutions' like carbon markets and geoengineering serve corporate elites rather than the planet. It calls for a systemic change where energy is treated as a human right and a common good, demanding a just transition that ends fossil fuel extraction and provides financial reparations from rich nations to less fortunate ones.

The document highlights a significant gap between projected fossil fuel production for 2030 and the levels required to limit global warming to 1.5°C or 2°C. It warns that expanding coal, oil, and gas production creates infrastructure lock-in that makes emission reductions more difficult and costly. Preliminary findings indicate that by 2030, the world is on track to produce 50% more fossil fuels than a 2°C pathway allows and 120% more than a 1.5°C pathway allows.

The document highlights a significant 'production gap' where planned fossil fuel production exceeds levels consistent with the Paris Agreement. Preliminary findings indicate that by 2030, the world is on track to produce 50% more fossil fuels than a 2°C pathway allows and 120% more than a 1.5°C pathway. This expansion risks locking in infrastructure that undermines emission reduction pledges and climate ambitions.

The document analyzes the fiscal dynamics of fossil fuels in Mexico, noting a decline in extraction revenues and an increase in consumption revenues. It argues for a cost-benefit analysis of continued fossil fuel reliance versus renewable alternatives and calls for increased transparency in hydrocarbon and coal revenues. The report warns against regressive generalized subsidies and highlights the tension between the administration of Andrés Manuel López Obrador's goal to increase oil extraction for energy security and the resulting environmental and social challenges.

The report examines the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system, describing it as a "parallel justice system" that privileges wealthy investors and multinational corporations over public interests. Through ten case studies across Europe, Africa, Asia, and Latin America, the document illustrates how ISDS is used to challenge environmental protections, public health measures, and land rights. It specifically criticizes the European Union's efforts to institutionalize the system through the Investment Court System (ICS) and a proposed Multilateral Investment Court, arguing these reforms do not address the fundamental imbalance of power. The report concludes that ISDS creates a "regulatory chill," where governments avoid passing progressive laws to avoid multi-billion dollar lawsuits, and calls for the complete dismantling of these "VIP courts."

The report examines the systemic injustices of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime, using ten case studies to demonstrate how corporations use international arbitration to bypass domestic courts and challenge public interest laws. It highlights the 'regulatory chill' effect, where the threat of multi-billion dollar lawsuits deters governments from implementing climate, health, and environmental protections. The document specifically criticises the European Union's proposed reforms, arguing that the Investment Court System (ICS) and the Multilateral Investment Court maintain the same substantive investor privileges that allow corporations to claim compensation for lost future profits and ignore human rights obligations.

The paper finds that most fossil fuel producing nations fail to use NDCs and LEDS to plan for a managed decline in production, often focusing only on cleaner extraction methods or explicitly planning for continued production.

The document challenges the assumption that peace is inherently good for all businesses, arguing that many companies operating in fragile and conflict-affected states (FCAS) may actually benefit from the status quo or face severe reprisals for engaging in peacebuilding. It contends that policies focusing solely on GDP growth or 'de-risking' investment without considering conflict dynamics can exacerbate fragility. The author urges 'systems shapers'—those who finance and regulate the private sector—to adopt conflict-sensitive approaches and ensure corporate accountability to prevent the private sector from becoming a vector for instability.

Earthjustice opposes Patrick Wyrick's nomination to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, alleging he coordinated with oil and gas lobbyists, failed to disclose financial conflicts of interest, and made false statements to the U.S. Supreme Court. The organization further argues that Wyrick's expressed belief that the "entire administrative state is unlawful" and his history of speaking at far-right events demonstrate an ideological bias that would prevent him from being an impartial judge.

The report details Canada's greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 to 2016, highlighting that while overall emissions grew nearly 17%, the oil and gas and transportation sectors were the primary drivers. It examines the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change and provides a detailed breakdown of emissions by province and territory, noting significant per capita disparities between jurisdictions like Alberta and Quebec.

The report details how plastic poses distinct health risks at every stage of its supply chain. It highlights toxic emissions during extraction and refining, the leaching of endocrine disruptors and carcinogens during consumer use, and the release of heavy metals and dioxins during waste incineration. The document emphasizes that microplastics and associated chemicals contaminate the global food chain, water supplies, and human tissues, while noting significant knowledge gaps and a lack of industry transparency regarding chemical compositions.

The document argues that the United States, as a top fossil fuel producer with a resilient economy, must phase out extraction faster than the global average to meet Paris Agreement goals. It introduces three principles: reducing production at a pace consistent with climate protection, accelerating phase-outs in economically resilient communities, and safeguarding human rights and the environment. The authors apply these principles to U.S. coal and onshore oil, identifying the Appalachian Basin and California's San Joaquin basin as high-priority areas for rapid wind-down due to high carbon intensity, lower relative economic dependence, and significant environmental or social harms.

The report proposes a three-year plan to transition Canada from voluntary to mandatory climate-related financial disclosure by 2021, aligning with TCFD recommendations. It highlights a market failure where Canadian clean technology firms face significant capital barriers and negative retained earnings, while the oil and gas sector carries substantial undisclosed 'tail risks' relative to global carbon budgets. The author recommends updating federal and provincial laws, such as the Canadian Business Corporations Act, and suggests that Canada align its sustainable finance frameworks with emerging EU taxonomies to diversify trade and attract international capital.

The document highlights a 'production gap' where current fossil fuel extraction trajectories far exceed carbon budgets for 1.5°C and 2°C scenarios. It advocates for a combination of supply-side measures—such as exploration moratoriums and subsidy removals—and demand-side policies to achieve cost-effective emission reductions and a just transition for affected workers.

The 2019 Production Gap Report reveals that global fossil fuel production plans are significantly incompatible with the Paris Agreement goals. By 2030, planned production is projected to be 50% higher than consistent with a 2°C pathway and 120% higher than a 1.5°C pathway, with the largest gap occurring in coal. The report identifies that this gap is wider than the global emissions gap because governments continue to support production through subsidies, direct investment, and ambitious national targets. It examines 10 key producer countries and suggests 'supply-side' policies—such as extraction bans, subsidy reform, and just transition plans—to close the gap. The report emphasizes that international cooperation through the UN climate process and financial institutions is essential to manage an equitable decline in fossil fuel extraction.

The Talanoa Dialogue is a UN-led inclusive process designed to assess collective climate action and motivate countries to increase their ambitions before submitting new nationally determined contributions (NDCs) in 2020. It serves as a test-run for the global stocktake scheduled to begin in 2023. The Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) contributed to the process by advocating for the alignment of fossil fuel production with Paris Agreement goals, suggesting that countries use NDCs and long-term strategies to map a managed decline in fossil fuel supply.