Search Climate Insights Directory

The U.S. carpet industry is characterized by high waste, with 89% of discarded carpets ending up in landfills and 6% being incinerated. Despite the existence of the Carpet America Recovery Effort (CARE), only 1% of carpet waste is recycled back into carpet in a closed loop. The report argues that major manufacturers, particularly Shaw and Mohawk, engage in greenwashing and actively lobby against Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation to maintain a wasteful linear model. In California, the AB 2398 law has failed to achieve meaningful recycling increases because it relies on consumer fees rather than producer funding, and is administered by CARE, which the report claims is under the influence of the industry's largest players.

The report examines the intersection of climate change and fiduciary duty for public pension fund trustees. It identifies four primary financial risks—physical impact, carbon asset, transition, and litigation—and argues that these risks necessitate the exercise of duties to inquire, monitor, diversify, and act impartially. The document suggests that failure to account for these risks may lead to lawsuits for breach of fiduciary duty, particularly regarding the interests of future beneficiaries. Recommended actions include modifying investment principles, divesting from climate-vulnerable assets, active shareholder engagement, and investing in clean energy.

The briefing explains that measuring electricity emissions through average factors often misrepresents the actual environmental impact of energy use. By adopting technology that tracks marginal emissions—the rate at which emissions change with a small change in load—consumers and corporations can optimize the timing and location of electricity use to maximize carbon reductions. The author highlights that harnessing end-use flexibility can make devices run 15 percent cleaner on average without cost or quality impacts. Practical applications include timing electric vehicle charging to avoid peaking plants and valuing renewable energy projects based on their specific carbon reduction potential rather than treating all megawatt-hours as equal.

The document advocates for increasing electric vehicle (EV) availability in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, noting that while 55% of regional consumers are interested, availability lags significantly behind California. It calls for the expiration of a regulatory exemption that allows sales in California to count toward compliance in Northeast states and suggests updating ZEV program credits to account for rapid improvements in battery range.

Mighty Earth and an international coalition of civil society organizations have called on wind energy companies—including Siemens, Nordex, Suzlon, Iberdrola, and Gamesa—to stop sourcing wind towers from Korindo's subsidiary, KOUSA. The organization argues that the climate benefits of the wind energy generated by these towers are negated by the environmental damage caused by Korindo's deforestation and burning practices. In response, Gamesa, Siemens, and Nordex stated they are investigating the matter, while Clipper and Vestas confirmed they are not customers of Korindo.

The report argues that the rapid growth of electric vehicles (EVs) requires a shift in regulatory paradigms to ensure that new loads benefit rather than impair the electricity grid. It emphasizes the role of state utility regulators in designing smart charging policies, rate structures, and infrastructure ownership models. Through case studies of California and Washington, the document illustrates different approaches to EV deployment and integration, highlighting the need for adaptive regulation, such as scalable pilots and scenario-based distribution planning, to manage the unpredictable nature of EV adoption.

The paper examines the adoption of Biodiversity Offsetting in England, highlighting a significant gap between policy implementation and research on its impacts. Through stakeholder interviews, the authors identify critical failures in both ecological compensation—such as the oversimplification of biodiversity metrics—and social compensation, specifically the marginalization of local communities and the loss of public access to nature. The study argues that the current 'no net loss' framework is a normative construct that often fails to account for the irreplaceable nature of certain habitats and the distributive justice concerns of affected populations.

The Union of Concerned Scientists evaluated BP on 30 metrics, finding that while the company acknowledges climate science and supports a carbon price, it fails to distance itself from trade associations that spread disinformation and lacks a company-wide emissions reduction plan.

The report evaluates the climate risk disclosure practices of several major fossil fuel companies, including Arch Coal, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, CONSOL Energy, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy, and Royal Dutch Shell. It scores companies across four categories: regulatory risks, physical risks, market/indirect risks, and corporate governance. While most companies provide detailed analysis of regulatory risks, the report finds widespread failures in disclosing the specific role of climate change in physical risks and a near-total absence of disclosure regarding corporate governance on climate issues.

The report evaluates the climate policy engagement of several major fossil fuel companies, including BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Arch Coal, CONSOL Energy, and Peabody Energy. It uses a scoring system to measure their support for federal carbon reduction policies, their responses to the EPA Clean Power Plan and Methane Rule, and their participation in climate-supportive business alliances. Findings range from 'Good' scores for companies like BP, which supports carbon pricing and the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, to 'Poor' or 'Egregious' scores for companies like Peabody Energy, which the report claims used climate science disinformation to oppose the Clean Power Plan.

The Union of Concerned Scientists evaluated eight major fossil fuel companies—Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, ConocoPhillips, Peabody Energy, CONSOL Energy, and Arch Coal—across four key areas of climate responsibility. The analysis found that all eight companies maintain memberships in trade associations that spread climate disinformation and none have developed a company-wide plan to align their business models with the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. While BP and Shell were noted for affirming climate science in direct communications, and BP and ConocoPhillips scored 'good' on general political spending oversight, the report concludes that the industry as a whole fails to take appropriate responsibility for the climate impacts of its products.

The document argues that electrifying heavy-duty vehicles in California can significantly reduce air pollution and global warming emissions while creating job opportunities for underserved communities. It provides a life cycle emissions analysis comparing battery and fuel cell electric buses to diesel and CNG alternatives, finds that current EV technology meets many urban operational needs, and recommends targeted workforce training and financial incentives to ensure an equitable transition.

Community groups Moms On a Mission Hui and Pō‘ai Wai Ola allege that HDOA and ADC have failed to implement Title VI compliance programs, leading to discriminatory adverse effects on Native Hawaiian populations. The complaint highlights the lack of pesticide registration limits, the absence of mandatory buffer zones, and a failure to enforce federal and state pesticide laws. It specifically points to the high concentration of genetically engineered seed crops in West Kaua‘i and Moloka‘i, where Native Hawaiian populations are proportionally higher than the state average. Additionally, the complaint cites ADC's operation of an unpermitted drainage ditch system on the Mānā Plain that discharges pollutants into waters used by Native Hawaiians. The complainants request that the EPA and USDA conduct compliance reviews and require the agencies to develop implementation plans to mitigate these discriminatory impacts.

The report finds that millions of Latinos in the US are disproportionately exposed to toxic air pollutants and ozone from oil and gas infrastructure, leading to significant health burdens. It highlights that 1.81 million Latinos live within a half-mile of such facilities and 1.78 million live in counties where cancer risks exceed EPA concern levels. The document argues that poverty and lack of health insurance exacerbate these risks, and calls for the EPA to regulate existing facilities, not just new ones, to protect public health and address climate change.

The report finds that millions of Latinos are exposed to toxic air pollutants and ozone smog from oil and gas facilities, leading to elevated cancer risks and childhood asthma attacks. These health threats are exacerbated by higher poverty rates and lower health insurance coverage within Latino populations. The authors argue for comprehensive EPA regulations covering both new and existing oil and gas infrastructure to reduce methane and toxic emissions.

The report utilizes the "window of opportunity" framework—examining context, champions, concerns, and complementary policies—to analyze coal phase-outs in California, Denmark, France, and Beijing. It highlights how resource endowment, international climate commitments, and public health concerns drive reform. For Beijing, the report details the closure of coal mines and power plants, the role of central and local government coordination, and the impact of high-profile events like the Olympics and APEC summit in accelerating the transition. It concludes that successful nationwide phase-out in China requires viable energy alternatives, social protection for workers, and high-level political leadership supported by grassroots demand.

The National Program for fuel efficiency and emissions standards is a cornerstone of Connecticut's strategy to reduce transportation emissions, which account for 40 percent of the state's total. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that the program has already saved Connecticut drivers $324 million since 2011 and reduced oil consumption by 97 million gallons. By 2030, the program is projected to lower the state's global warming emissions by 4.5 million metric tons per year, save consumers $1.5 billion in gas expenses, and create over 4,000 jobs, increasing the state's GDP by more than $1 billion.

The document assesses the impact of the US National Program's fuel efficiency and emissions standards on Massachusetts, highlighting reductions in oil consumption, consumer cost savings, and greenhouse gas emissions. It warns that a federal midterm review of the 2022–2025 standards could jeopardize these benefits, which include projected GDP growth and job creation by 2030.

The National Program for fuel efficiency and emissions standards is a cornerstone of Maryland's strategy to reduce transportation emissions, which account for 38 percent of statewide emissions. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that the program has already saved Maryland drivers $535 million in fuel costs since 2011 and reduced annual transportation-related emissions by 754,000 metric tons. By 2030, the program is projected to lower the state's global warming emissions by 9.1 million metric tons per year, create over 6,000 jobs, and increase the state's GDP by more than $1.3 billion.

The National Program for fuel efficiency and emissions standards is a cornerstone of New Jersey's strategy to reduce transportation emissions, which account for 41 percent of statewide emissions. The program has already reduced annual transportation-related emissions in the state by 935,000 metric tons and saved drivers $648 million in fuel costs since 2011. By 2030, the program is projected to lower New Jersey's global warming emissions by 9.3 million metric tons per year, create over 15,000 jobs, and increase the state's GDP by more than $1.5 billion.