Search Climate Insights Directory

The document highlights the vulnerability of Canadian infrastructure to climate change, noting that current construction often relies on outdated climate data. It proposes four key actions: improving climate risk information, integrating climate considerations into all government infrastructure decisions, requiring risk disclosure from owners and investors, and increasing financial support for municipalities to fund resilience projects.

The Arctic is warming up to four times faster than the global average, leading to rapid sea ice loss and permafrost melt. These changes disrupt global weather patterns and increase risks from commercial shipping, resource extraction, and pollution. While the Arctic Council provides a framework for cooperation and the Stockholm Convention has successfully reduced persistent organic pollutants, current governance is hindered by weak legal structures and geopolitical tensions, specifically following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The document advocates for stronger greenhouse gas mitigation and the potential establishment of an Arctic sanctuary.

A letter from various health professionals and organizations to Canadian leaders advocating for a societal shift toward well-being to address the climate and biodiversity crises.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) has acknowledged a CAD 25 million investment from the Government of Canada's 2022 Federal Budget for the IISD Experimental Lakes Area (IISD-ELA). This funding is intended to support research into freshwater threats, including climate change and microplastics, and to facilitate collaborations with Indigenous communities and the African Center for Aquatic Research and Education.

The document outlines the wide-ranging health risks associated with traffic-related air pollution (TRAP), noting that in Canada, one-third of the population lives within 250m of a major road. It highlights that children, racialized people, and those in poverty are disproportionately vulnerable to these pollutants. The report links TRAP to respiratory, cardiovascular, neurological, and pregnancy-related illnesses, as well as increased COVID-19 risks, and recommends policy interventions such as low emission zones, electric vehicles, and expanded urban green spaces.

The report synthesizes scientific evidence on the wide-ranging health impacts of traffic-related air pollution (TRAP), emphasizing its disproportionate effect on marginalized populations and its role in exacerbating COVID-19. It advocates for decisive policy, legislative, and regulatory interventions to reduce emissions and protect public health.

The report synthesizes evidence on the wide-ranging health risks of traffic-related air pollution (TRAP), noting that one-third of Canadians live within 250m of a major road. It details impacts across respiratory, cardiovascular, neurological, and reproductive systems, while highlighting that racialized and low-income populations bear a disproportionate burden. The document also analyzes how the COVID-19 pandemic both exacerbated health risks and demonstrated the potential for air quality improvement through traffic restrictions. It concludes with recommendations for pollution control policies, active transport infrastructure, and urban greening.

The report reviews 42 NDCs to identify national priorities for advanced low-emission technologies. It finds that 14 jurisdictions include carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS), 16 include low-carbon hydrogen and ammonia, and 11 prioritize nuclear energy. The analysis highlights a mix of developed and developing nations seeking these technologies, with some relying on international financial and technological support for implementation.

The Canadian Climate Institute concludes that Canada's 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan is credible and capable of delivering deep emissions reductions, putting the country on a path to meet its 2026 targets and nearly meeting its 2030 milestone. However, the assessment warns that success depends entirely on the timely execution of a complex policy package, with at least 43 per cent of reductions coming from policies that are announced but not yet developed. Five critical policies—carbon pricing, the oil and gas cap, the Clean Electricity Standard, the Clean Fuel Standard, and land-use reductions—are identified as accounting for 62 per cent of the total reductions needed by 2030.

The Canadian Climate Institute concludes that the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan is credible and puts Canada on a path toward its 2050 net-zero goal, though a slight gap remains for the 2030 target. Independent modeling suggests that while the plan is transparent and ambitious, its success depends on the rapid implementation of five priority policies—carbon pricing, an oil and gas emissions cap, a clean electricity standard, a clean fuels standard, and land-use emission reductions—which together would account for 62% of the necessary reductions. The report emphasizes that the primary risk is no longer the plan's design but the speed and effectiveness of its execution.

The report identifies significant gaps in the monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) infrastructure for carbon dioxide removal (CDR), noting that existing frameworks are primarily designed for emission reductions rather than removals. It highlights inconsistencies in how permanence, system boundaries, and additionality are treated across different voluntary and compliance standards. The authors recommend the development of dedicated methodologies for Direct Air Capture (DAC) and Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), the adoption of dynamic baselines aligned with Paris Agreement targets, and a standardized approach to defining 'permanent' storage to prevent the overestimation of mitigation results.

The report finds that while Canadian community foundations (CCFs) have grown their endowments to nearly CAD 7 billion as of 2020, they have largely failed to use these assets to combat climate change. Most CCFs rely on vague 'ESG integration' for risk mitigation rather than pursuing climate-positive investments. The analysis reveals significant capacity gaps and a lack of diversity on investment committees, which often act as barriers to strategic change. The report recommends moving toward positive screening, increasing transparency of holdings, and joining the Canadian Philanthropy Commitment on Climate Change to align financial assets with community climate goals.

The briefing analyzes 1,047 energy policies adopted between January 2020 and November 2021, finding that most governments prioritize short-term poverty reduction over long-term inequality reduction. While 60% of policies could reduce poverty, only 11% are likely to decrease inequality. The authors identify 'win-win' policies (e.g., energy efficiency in social housing) and 'lose-lose' policies (e.g., fossil fuel extraction support), arguing that the social outcomes of energy transitions depend heavily on policy design, contextual factors, and complementary social protections.

The Seal River Watershed is a 50,000 km2 region in Northern Manitoba that is 99.97% intact and free-flowing. The report estimates that the watershed provides at least CAD 214 million in annual EGS, primarily driven by the non-use value of species conservation. Additionally, the carbon stored in its peatlands, wetlands, and forests is valued at CAD 314.5 billion based on the social cost of carbon. The document argues that Indigenous stewardship through an Indigenous Protected Area is the most effective way to preserve these values against risks from mining, all-weather roads, and water diversion.

The report by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) examines the Royal Academy of Engineering's (RAEng) continued financial ties to the fossil fuel industry. It highlights that RAEng lacks a blanket exclusionary investment policy, maintains corporate partnerships with BP and Shell, and accepts funding from the Shell Centenary Scholarship Fund. SGR argues these links contradict RAEng's 2025 goal of building a sustainable society and notes that several peer academic and professional bodies have already divested from fossil fuels.

The document highlights the role of boreal forests in storing two-thirds of global forest carbon and the threat posed by intensifying wildfires. It argues that current fire management in Alaska does not account for carbon emissions and is underfunded relative to its contribution to US fire emissions. Research suggests that increasing spending on fire suppression could cost-effectively reduce fire size and CO2 emissions, costing approximately $12.63 per ton of CO2 averted.

The report outlines the assumptions for 25 federal policies categorized as legislated/developed, developing, or announced. Key measures include a federal fuel charge and Output-Based Pricing System reaching $170/tCO2e by 2030, a proposed emissions cap on the oil and gas sector, and a Clean Electricity Standard aiming for net-zero by 2035. The document specifies simulation scenarios for these policies, including varying stringency levels for methane reductions, ZEV mandates, and building efficiency standards, alongside detailed funding allocations for infrastructure, hydrogen projects, and industrial decarbonization.

In 2021, global electricity demand grew by 5.4%, the fastest rate since 2010. While solar and wind generation continued to rise, coal generation reached an all-time high, leading to a 7% increase in power sector CO2 emissions. This resulted in the first increase in global electricity carbon intensity since 2011, moving the sector further away from the IEA's 1.5 degree pathway.

The report finds that the world's 60 largest banks provided USD $4.6 trillion in fossil fuel financing from 2016 to 2021, with $742 billion in 2021 alone. It highlights a significant gap between banks' net-zero commitments and their actual lending and underwriting practices, particularly regarding companies expanding oil, gas, and coal production. The analysis identifies JPMorgan Chase as the world's worst banker of fossil fuels over this period. The report also details financing in high-impact subsectors, such as tar sands, Arctic oil and gas, and coal power, while emphasizing the human rights impacts on Indigenous and frontline communities.

The document outlines the business case and technical process for seafood companies to adopt Science-Based Targets (SBTs) to mitigate climate change. It highlights that while seafood generally has a lower carbon footprint than land-based proteins, the industry faces significant risks from ocean warming and acidification. The guide details a process of data collection, GHG accounting using Life Cycle Assessments (LCA), and target setting through the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi). Key reduction strategies include the electrification of fishing vessels, the development of low-carbon aquaculture feed, and the reduction of air freight. It emphasizes that Scope 3 emissions—particularly from feed and transport—represent the largest challenge and require pre-competitive collaboration across the value chain.