Search Climate Insights Directory

Togo has produced its first communication on climate change adaptation to the UNFCCC, consolidating vulnerability and adaptation studies from the agriculture, water resources, human settlements, health, and coastal zone sectors. The report builds upon the 2016 National Adaptation Plan (NAP) and the 2020 National Adaptation Plan for the Health Sector (PNAS), while emphasizing the need to integrate climate adaptation into local development plans for communes as part of the country's decentralization process.

The document argues that the fossil fuel industry poses a direct threat to human health and mental wellbeing, contributing to millions of deaths and widespread climate anxiety. It specifically highlights a conflict of interest where marketing agencies serve both the health sector and fossil fuel companies, facilitating 'greenwashing' that delays climate action. The authors call on health industry leaders to review these agency relationships and cease partnerships with firms that continue to work with fossil fuel clients.

The report finds that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) would significantly increase U.S. household energy costs, lead to substantial job losses in manufacturing and clean energy, and increase greenhouse gas emissions and premature deaths. By repealing key tax credits and environmental standards, the bill is projected to shrink cumulative GDP by $1.1 trillion between 2025 and 2034 and reduce new electricity capacity by 330 GW by 2035. While the bill expands oil and gas leasing, the report argues that the resulting increase in production is offset by higher demand-driven prices for fossil fuels.

The report finds that private equity-backed fossil fuel infrastructure in the U.S. causes between $11.3 and $15.1 billion in annual human health damages, resulting in nearly 1,000 premature deaths and 1,500 emergency room visits each year. A small group of firms, specifically ArcLight, Energy Capital Partners (ECP), and Quantum Capital, are responsible for approximately 20% of these impacts. The General J.M. Gavin coal plant in Ohio is identified as the single most harmful facility, causing an estimated $1.7 billion in annual health impacts. Regional analysis highlights a disproportionate burden in the Mid-Atlantic/New England area, where people are three times more likely to die from this pollution than in the rest of the U.S., and in Texas, which ranks first in asthma onset and symptoms due to its large population and proximity to the Permian Basin.

The report finds that private equity-backed fossil fuel facilities in the U.S. cause between $11.3 and $15.1 billion in annual human health damages, resulting in nearly 1,000 premature deaths and 1,500 emergency room visits per year. A small group of firms, specifically ArcLight, Energy Capital Partners, and Quantum Capital, are responsible for approximately 20% of these impacts. The General J.M. Gavin coal plant in Ohio is identified as the single most harmful facility, accounting for roughly 19% of all health impacts in the study. Regional analysis highlights disproportionate burdens in the Mid-Atlantic/New England area and the Permian Basin, with Texas ranking first in asthma onset and symptoms due to its large population and proximity to extraction sites.

The report finds that human-caused climate change significantly increased the frequency and intensity of extreme heat globally from May 2024 to May 2025. Approximately 4 billion people experienced at least 30 additional days of extreme heat, and 195 countries saw the number of such days at least double compared to a world without climate change. All 67 significant heat events analyzed were influenced by climate change, with some becoming dozens of times more likely. The authors emphasize that while adaptation strategies like City Heat Action Plans are vital, comprehensive mitigation through the phasing out of fossil fuels is the only way to limit future harms.

A December 2024 survey of registered U.S. voters found that 55% believe federal agencies should increase their efforts to protect people from the health harms of global warming, while only 15% believe they should decrease these efforts. Support for increased federal action varies significantly by political affiliation, with 86% of liberal Democrats supporting more action compared to 22% of conservative Republicans.

A December 2024 survey of registered U.S. voters found that 55% believe federal agencies should increase their efforts to protect people from the health harms of global warming, while 75% want these agencies to either maintain or increase their current efforts. Support for increased federal action varies significantly by political affiliation, with the highest support among liberal Democrats (86%) and the lowest among conservative Republicans (22%).

The brief argues that the 'Wind Directive'—which suspends all federal wind permitting—violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by deviating from established review processes without a reasoned explanation. Amici assert that wind power is a cost-effective, critical energy source with significant public health and climate benefits. They further argue that the directive's claims regarding wind energy's impact on whales and birds are scientifically unsupported, citing findings from NOAA and the GAO. Finally, the brief highlights a contradiction in federal policy, where the administration fast-tracks fossil fuel projects while blocking wind energy, despite the latter's superior economic and environmental profile.

The document outlines the cyclical relationship between climate change and wildfires, highlighting how rising temperatures and droughts increase fire frequency while the resulting emissions accelerate global warming. It focuses on the US-Mexico border region—specifically Southern California, Arizona, and Northern Baja California—where smoke stagnation and limited healthcare access disproportionately affect migrants, outdoor workers, and marginalized urban populations in cities like Tijuana, Nogales, and El Paso. The guide suggests journalistic angles for investigating cross-border firefighting coordination between agencies like CAL FIRE and CONAFOR, the health impacts of smoke on vulnerable groups, and the effectiveness of local air quality monitoring tools.

The document outlines the global feedback loop between climate change and wildfires, while highlighting the specific vulnerabilities of border communities and migrants in the US-Mexico region. It provides a framework for reporting on transboundary air pollution, the health risks of smoke exposure for marginalized groups, and the role of cross-border fire management coordination.

The IAI is seeking nominations for its Expert List to provide technical consultation to regional stakeholders. Nominees must possess authoritative knowledge in one of eight strategic scientific themes: food security, energy security, water security, biodiversity and ecosystem services, climate action, health and wellbeing, poverty and equity, or clean air, water and soils. The list currently includes former and current members of the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) and the Science and Policy Advisory Committee (SPAC), as well as IAI-funded researchers. Nominations must be submitted by June 6, 2025.

The Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI) is expanding its Expert List to provide regional actors with a curated directory of professionals for technical consultations. Nominees must possess authoritative knowledge in one of eight priority themes: Food Security, Energy Security, Water Security, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Climate Action, Health and Well-Being, Poverty and Equity, or Clean Air, Water, and Soils. The list currently comprises investigators from IAI-funded projects and members of the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) and Science-Policy Advisory Committee (SPAC). Parties must submit nominations by 6 June 2025.

The author contends that the Trump administration and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin are bypassing clean air laws by granting pollution waivers to coal-fired power plants and chemical manufacturers. The document asserts that the administration is distorting Section 112(i)(4) of the Clean Air Act—originally intended for extraordinary national security circumstances—to provide corporate giveaways without scientific review or public input. It highlights that 68 coal-fired power plants have already received two-year exemptions from Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, and that industry groups like the American Chemistry Council are seeking similar exemptions for over 200 chemical facilities.

The briefing highlights the failure of the UK Department for Transport (DfT) to hold auto manufacturers accountable for illegal defeat devices, which allow vehicles to exceed emissions limits. Citing ICCT analysis, it suggests 2.4 million UK vehicles may be affected. Commissioned research from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air estimates that since 2009, excess emissions from these devices have caused 16,000 premature deaths and a £96bn economic burden in the UK, with further significant health and financial costs projected through 2040 if no action is taken.

The document argues that health organizations should lead the effort to revoke the 'social license' of the fossil fuel industry by refusing to work with PR agencies linked to it. It draws a parallel between the current fossil fuel industry and the historical tobacco industry, citing CVS Health's 2014 decision to stop selling tobacco as a model for corporate responsibility. The guide outlines a 'Fossil Fuel Free Health Communications Pledge' and a three-step screening process for agencies: requesting full client disclosure, seeking a commitment to avoid future fossil fuel clients, and demanding public accountability. It also provides a list of specific questions for organizations to ask potential agencies to ensure alignment with public health and climate goals.

The document argues that fossil fuel companies use disinformation campaigns, similar to the tobacco industry's historical tactics, to obstruct climate action and harm public health. It urges health organizations to leverage their credibility and market influence—noting a healthcare advertising market valued at USD 42.28 billion in 2024—to revoke the industry's 'social license' by refusing to hire agencies with fossil fuel ties. The guide outlines a 'Commitment for Fossil-Free Health Communications' and a three-step screening process: requesting full client disclosure (specifically for the past 3 years), seeking a fossil-free commitment (such as the Clean Creatives pledge), and verifying public accountability. It cites the 2014 decision by CVS Health to stop selling tobacco products as a precedent for how health-focused entities can catalyze broader industry change by aligning business practices with health missions.

The report finds that the 2025 Reconciliation bill would significantly increase household energy costs, lead to substantial job losses, and increase greenhouse gas emissions by repealing clean energy incentives and EPA standards. Despite proposed increases in oil and gas production, the analysis suggests that higher demand for fossil fuels and the loss of low-cost renewable capacity would raise overall energy spending and decrease GDP.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, via the Coalition for Action on Toxics, identifies three priority areas for federal political action: reinforcing the Zero Plastic Waste agenda to end plastic pollution by 2040, expediting the phase-out of PFAS (forever chemicals), and providing long-term funding for the Chemicals Management Plan. The document argues that toxic exposures are a public health and environmental justice issue, noting that 88% of Canadians support increased federal regulatory action under CEPA. It highlights that Indigenous, racialized, disabled, and poor communities, as well as women and gender-diverse people, are disproportionately impacted by these pollutants.

The document outlines how climate change increases the prevalence of climate-sensitive diseases and strains health infrastructure, particularly in lower-income areas and along the U.S.-Mexico border. It highlights the risks faced by migrants and local populations, including heatstroke, Valley fever, and mosquito-borne illnesses, while suggesting specific reporting angles and expert resources.