Search Climate Insights Directory

The report outlines eight key action items to protect marine and coastal biodiversity under the Convention on Biological Diversity, focusing on integrated management, protected areas, sustainable fisheries, and the mitigation of global threats like climate change and pollution.

The report argues that buildings are inefficient not due to a lack of technology, but because of a 'spherically senseless' institutional framework. It identifies key failures such as the decoupling of capital and operating costs for developers, the prevalence of 'catalog engineering' driven by low design fees, and the systemic oversizing of HVAC equipment to avoid liability. The author proposes restructuring professional fees to reward energy savings, integrating multidisciplinary design teams from the conceptual stage, and reforming leasing practices to align the incentives of landlords and tenants.

The report finds that while global attitudes toward climate change remain largely stable, there is a distinct increase in concern and perceived impact within Europe, where salience rose in France, Italy, and Spain, and more people reported noticing heatwaves and droughts.

The document examines the trend of 'supermarketisation' in Africa, where large grocery chains act as gatekeepers in food value chains. It highlights how the buyer power of these chains can marginalise small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) through stringent standards and unfair trading terms, which in turn can hinder climate change mitigation investments. The authors propose a 'Sustainability Compact' consisting of behavioural undertakings for fair treatment of suppliers and active investment in supplier development programmes to create more inclusive and sustainable food systems.

The report details the persistence of climate disinformation across major platforms like X, Meta, TikTok, and YouTube. It identifies key narratives used to discredit renewable energy, the use of extreme weather events (wildfires and hurricanes) to fuel conspiracy theories and incite violence, and the extensive use of Meta's advertising tools by fossil fuel entities for greenwashing and lobbying. The authors argue that platform architectures reward engagement over truth, necessitating systemic policy changes to disrupt the economy of disinformation.

The report details how fossil fuel companies use paid advertising and 'organic' content on platforms like TikTok, Meta, Google, and X/Twitter to control the narrative around carbon capture and storage (CCS). It highlights Chevron's use of a 'low-budget' aesthetic and diverse ambassadors on TikTok to target Gen-Z, and the prevalence of industry-sponsored results at the top of Google searches for 'carbon capture'. The analysis also notes a trend where organic opposition to CCS on social media is sometimes driven by conspiracy theories, such as those involving 'The Great Reset' or vaccines, alongside good-faith scientific criticism.

The report identifies a resurgence of climate denial and the rise of 'delayism' during COP27, highlighting how fossil fuel-linked entities used Meta's advertising tools for greenwashing and how Twitter's algorithms surfaced the #ClimateScam hashtag despite lower engagement than pro-climate terms. It details a 'narrative playbook' where climate action is framed as an elitist plot or a 'culture war' issue, often overlapping with anti-vaccine and right-wing conspiracy communities.

The report identifies three primary ecosystems driving climate mis- and disinformation: the 'attention economy' of online influencers, state-affiliated networks (specifically Russia), and the fossil fuel lobby. It details how the #ClimateScam hashtag has gained prominence on X, how ad tech companies monetise websites hosting climate denial, how Russian state media instrumentalises climate topics for geopolitical influence, and how fossil fuel companies use Facebook advertising for greenwashing. The document argues that these efforts undermine the public mandate for Net Zero and calls for structural changes to digital platform incentives and greater transparency in ad tech.

The document details the methodology for four distinct research areas: the analysis of the #ClimateScam hashtag and X's auto-complete function; the identification of 15 monetized websites sharing climate disinformation and the ad exchanges supporting them; the monitoring of Russian state media and diplomatic accounts on Facebook across four languages; and the collection of political advertising from major fossil fuel companies and petrostates via the Meta Ad Library.

The report finds that climate disinformation is widespread across Australia, Brazil, Germany, India, the UK, and the USA, with between 55% and 85% of surveyed populations believing at least one misinformation statement. Significant gaps exist between public perception and scientific consensus regarding the human cause of climate change and the role of natural gas. The study highlights that regular news consumption does not necessarily correlate with better scientific understanding and, in some cases, is linked to higher belief in misinformation narratives. Additionally, a substantial portion of respondents in all six countries believe their nations cannot afford to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

The document advocates for banning fossil fuel advertisements to prevent the industry from using greenwashing and disinformation to maintain its 'social license to operate'. It highlights existing partial bans in France and efforts in 10 countries, including Australia, Canada, Ireland, and South Africa, as well as over 50 cities. The text compares the fossil fuel industry to the tobacco industry, suggesting that similar regulatory tools are needed to protect public health and enable climate action. It also discusses the role of litigation, corporate campaigns like Clean Creatives, and the targeting of advertising finances to dismantle the industry's influence on public opinion.

The document argues that the rapid growth of generative AI is driving a significant increase in electricity demand, which threatens climate goals by incentivising the continued use of fossil fuels and diverting clean energy resources. It highlights a lack of transparency in corporate emissions reporting, where 'market-based' accounting masks actual grid impacts, and warns that 'moonshot' technology promises like nuclear fusion may act as mitigation deterrence. Specific examples include data centre growth in Ireland and Malaysia, and the rising emissions profiles of companies like Microsoft and Google.

The report finds that between 55% and 85% of surveyed populations in six countries believe at least one piece of climate misinformation, with the highest prevalence in India and the lowest in the UK. Significant portions of the public hold beliefs contrary to scientific consensus, such as the idea that natural gas is a climate-friendly energy source or that net-zero targets are unaffordable. The study identifies a strong correlation between high-frequency news consumption and a higher likelihood of believing misinformation, highlighting specific media outlets like Fox News in the US and the Daily Mail in the UK as being associated with higher rates of misinformation belief.

The report by Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD) analyzes ten 'misleading claims' used by fossil fuel interests to delay the energy transition. It argues that fossil fuels are the primary driver of climate change, with 36.6 billion tonnes of the 40.5 billion global CO2 emissions in 2022 originating from their use. The document debunks claims that emissions—rather than fossil fuels themselves—are the problem, and challenges the industry's focus on Scope 1 and 2 emissions, noting that Scope 3 emissions account for 80-95% of total carbon emissions for oil and gas companies. It further critiques technological 'solutions' like Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), Direct Air Capture (DAC), e-fuels, and 'blue' hydrogen, characterizing them as expensive, inefficient, or unproven at the scale required to limit warming to 1.5C. Finally, it argues that fossil fuel reliance hinders economic growth in Africa and Asia and exacerbates the global cost-of-living crisis.

The document argues that continued investment in fossil fuels contradicts the medical commitment to 'do no harm' and provides a five-step process for health organizations to transition their assets. It highlights the financial risk of 'stranded' carbon reserves and the economic opportunity of renewable energy, citing the fossil fuel sector as the worst performing in the S&P500 since 2007. The guide recommends using the Carbon Underground 200 to identify divestment targets and suggests reinvesting at least 5% of portfolios into climate solutions.

The report examines the transition of global shipping to zero-carbon fuels, specifically hydrogen and ammonia. It identifies a 'chicken-and-egg' dilemma where infrastructure investment depends on demand, and demand depends on supply. The analysis evaluates several major ports—including Rotterdam, Jebel Ali, Los Angeles, Houston, Tokyo, Shanghai, and Hong Kong—based on their trade connectivity, technological capacity for fuel production, and policy support. It concludes that while blue hydrogen is currently the most realistic large-scale production pathway, green hydrogen is promising in regions with cheap renewables like the UAE and Australia. The report recommends establishing trans-oceanic coalitions, partnering fuel suppliers with shipping companies along major trade routes, and leveraging public finance to de-risk infrastructure investments.

The document highlights that just 1% of Australia's superhot rock geothermal resource could provide 624 GW of energy capacity, potentially meeting the country's projected 2050 electricity demand of 436,281 GWh. It argues that this technology offers a low-land-footprint alternative to other renewables and a transition pathway for the oil and gas workforce.

The document highlights that just 1% of Brazil's superhot rock geothermal resource could provide 341 GW of energy capacity, exceeding the country's projected 2050 electricity demand of 1,309,104 GWh. It argues that this technology could replace all coal and gas imports used for electricity, reduce electricity sector emissions by approximately 88 megatonnes of CO2eq, and leverage existing subsurface expertise from Brazil's oil and gas sector.

The document outlines the necessity of shared CO2 transport and storage 'hubs' to enable the decarbonization of emissions-intensive industries and the deployment of Direct Air Capture in the U.S. It identifies critical barriers—including high costs, a 'chicken-and-egg' challenge between capture and transport, and the need for future-proof capacity—and proposes the SCALE Act as a solution. The Act includes programs for cost-sharing storage hubs, increased EPA permitting funding, FEED grants, and low-interest loans via the CO2 Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (CIFIA). The text notes that while the U.S. has 5,000 miles of existing CO2 pipelines, it lacks the comprehensive federal policy support seen in Canada, the EU, Norway, the UK, and Australia.

The document outlines a policy package comprising 45Q tax credit enhancements, the SCALE Act for infrastructure, and the appropriation of the Energy Act of 2020, which together could increase US carbon management capacity 13-fold by the mid-2030s.