Search Climate Insights Directory

The document analyzes the ideological shift within European green parties—specifically in Belgium, France, and Germany—from a foundation of anti-militarism and nuclear disarmament in the 1980s toward a complex tension between pacifism and the 'responsibility to protect' human rights. It highlights how events such as the Kosovo conflict, the September 11 attacks, and the 2011 intervention in Libya created internal divisions between those advocating for absolute non-violence and those supporting legal military intervention to prevent massacres. The author argues that green parties must now address new complexities of modern warfare, including privatization and environmental consequences, to pursue their ultimate goals of world peace and global disarmament.

The document examines the ideological shift within European Green parties regarding the use of force, moving from 1980s antimilitarism and anti-nuclear activism toward a complex debate between strict pacifism and humanitarian interventionism based on international law.

The document defines a Green foreign policy as a holistic approach that prioritizes human rights, democracy, and environmental sustainability over narrow economic interests. It advocates for the reform of international organizations like the UN and the Bretton Woods Institutions to increase transparency and representation for the Global South. The framework emphasizes the strengthening of international law, specifically the International Criminal Court, and supports restrictive weapons export policies and UN-mandated military interventions. It also calls for a development agenda that links environmental sustainability with social inclusion and conflict prevention through the 'Responsibilities to Protect' (R2P) framework.

The document examines the challenges European Green parties face in reconciling non-violence with the need to protect human rights in conflict zones. It argues for a shift in EU foreign policy from reactive crisis management to a proactive, multilateral approach that prioritizes ecological justice, nuclear disarmament, and the empowerment of civil society. Specific analyses cover the conflicts in Ukraine, Syria, and the Maghreb, as well as the strategic importance of South East Asia.

The document serves as an appendix to a study on the relationship between majority religion and armed conflict. It provides detailed datasets on the majority religions of countries as of 2010, the incidence of intrastate armed conflict by religion between 1991 and 2012, and a comprehensive list of opposition groups in intrastate conflicts from 1946 to 2013. It specifically examines the prevalence of Islamist insurgents and the conflict history of the ten countries with the largest Muslim populations.

The report challenges the 'jihadi bride' stereotype, arguing that Western women migrate to ISIS due to a complex mix of push factors (social isolation, perceived persecution of Muslims) and pull factors (religious duty, sisterhood, and romanticised adventure). While their primary roles are domestic, some women engage in propaganda and professional services. The document analyses de-radicalisation models in Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and the UK, concluding that there is a critical shortage of female mentors and gender-nuanced counter-narratives to effectively address this threat.

The policy brief examines the 'special partnership' between Russia and Turkey, noting that while they disagree on the Syrian civil war, they share autocratic political instincts and a mutual desire to curtail US interventionism. The author argues that Russia can boost its Middle Eastern role through joint initiatives with Turkey, leveraging the personal chemistry between Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. While energy ties—specifically natural gas pipelines and the Akkuyu nuclear power plant—provide a foundation, the document suggests that the leaders' shared 'contrarian' tendencies and need for foreign policy victories are primary drivers for potential cooperation in Northern Syria and the South Caucasus.

The document defines energy poverty as a lack of sufficient alternatives to access adequate, affordable, and sustainable energy services, which hinders economic and human development. It highlights that 1.3 billion people lack electricity and 2.7 billion rely on biomass, leading to severe health issues. The author argues that energy poverty is both a cause and consequence of general poverty, creating a 'poverty trap' that requires specific policy interventions beyond general economic growth. The briefing notes that universal energy access by 2030 is financially feasible, requiring an annual investment of 30 to 35 billion dollars, which is significantly less than global fossil fuel subsidies.

The report estimates that a transition to a low-carbon economy could put nearly $25 trillion of fossil fuel asset value at risk, with approximately 80% of this risk borne by governments rather than private investors. The analysis highlights that oil represents the majority of value at risk (close to 75%), while coal offers the highest emissions reduction potential with relatively low stranding risk (12%). The document argues that the net economic impact depends heavily on policy: a purely tax-based approach to reducing oil demand could cost the global economy $3 trillion, whereas an innovation-led transition could yield a net benefit of $7 trillion. It recommends prioritizing the phase-out of coal and utilizing financial mechanisms to lower the cost of renewable energy in emerging markets.

The emergence of the Islamic State represents a significant shift in global jihadism, offering a divisive alternative to al-Qaeda. Africa is particularly vulnerable due to the presence of established radical Islamist groups and the potential return of thousands of battle-hardened African fighters from Iraq and Syria. The document warns that the Islamic State's model of territorial occupation and its extreme ideology could destabilise several African regions, particularly North and West Africa. It argues that governments should avoid draconian counter-terrorism measures, which often fuel radicalisation, and instead pursue criminal justice-based approaches that address local drivers of discontent.

The report examines the 'peace potential' of oil and gas resources, analyzing how joint development, revenue sharing, and infrastructure projects like pipelines can either mitigate or fuel conflict. It contrasts successful cooperation, such as the Saudi-Kuwaiti Partitioned Neutral Zone and Turkey-Iraqi Kurdish relations, with failures in the Caucasus and disputes in the South China Sea and Eastern Mediterranean. The study also addresses the role of international environmental law and the climate impact of transitioning from coal to natural gas.

A letter from a coalition of NGOs to Prime Minister David Cameron advocating for a comprehensive, transparent, and non-military-centric approach to the 2015 National Security Strategy (NSS) and Defence and Security Review (DSR). The authors argue that the UK should shift away from prioritizing force projection and instead address the root causes of insecurity, suggesting that resources be reallocated from military procurement, such as nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, toward renewable energy and flood risk mitigation.

The document argues that internal armed conflict acts as 'development in reverse,' creating a 'conflict trap' where low development leads to war, which further degrades socio-economic conditions. Research by PRIO indicates that conflict detrimentally affects most MDG indicators, including GDP per capita, infant mortality, and access to potable water. Notably, the indirect effects of conflict—such as the destruction of health infrastructure and diversion of resources to military spending—can be as severe as direct battlefield casualties. The authors advocate for the UN General Assembly to make conflict reduction an explicit goal in the post-2015 development agenda to break this cycle.

The document argues that the US-Afghan relationship failed because Washington prioritised its global agenda and military objectives over respect for Afghan sovereignty and the needs of the Afghan people. Key failures identified include the US refusal to marginalise warlords, a 'light footprint' approach that delayed the creation of a national army and police, and a donor system that bypassed the Afghan government. The author highlights civilian casualties as a primary trigger for tension, noting that US cultural insensitivity and a lack of accountability fueled perceptions of occupation. The transition to the Obama administration is described as a period of further deterioration due to a lack of personal engagement with President Karzai and perceived interference in Afghan internal politics. The paper concludes that future stability depends on a 'reset' based on mutual respect and a genuine commitment to Afghan ownership.

The document explores the 'humanitarian drone' as a 'war dividend' from military spending, arguing that the transfer of UAV hardware—including surveillance, cargo, and weaponized drones—also transfers military rationales such as 'surgical precision' and 'targeting logic' into the humanitarian sector. The authors warn that the push for humanitarian drones is driven by a commercial logic to gain legitimacy for the UAV industry and may lead to the dehumanization of suffering or a lowered threshold for the use of force through 'humanitarian combat drones.' While drones offer potential for improved aid delivery and crisis mapping, the paper emphasizes that technology is not neutral and cannot replace the empathy and ethical judgment essential to humanitarian work.

The document analyzes the bipolar rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia within the Persian Gulf Regional Security Complex, examining how their competition for ideological leadership, regional security dominance, and energy market control influences their strategic engagement in Afghanistan. It explores the role of global powers—the USA, Russia, and China—in reinforcing these regional divisions and assesses the potential for a cooperative security architecture in the region.

The document is an appendix to a research paper that lists specific conflict episodes where natural resources played a role. It categorizes these links into mechanisms such as financing, distribution, and aggravation, providing brief descriptions of how resources like oil, diamonds, timber, and land influenced the conflicts across various global regions.

The document analyzes the International Bar Association's Model Mining Development Agreement (MMDA 1.0), providing a template and narrative to ensure mining contracts promote sustainable development, transparency, and equitable resource distribution. It details key contractual areas including land tenure, royalties, taxation, and community obligations, while emphasizing the use of international standards like the IFC Performance Standards and EITI. Additionally, the report investigates the existence of similar model agreements for the oil and gas sector, concluding that no internationally accepted model currently exists despite the availability of various national form contracts.

The report examines how the DoD's unique capacity for end-to-end research, development, and procurement can be leveraged for energy innovation. It analyzes three case studies—gas turbines, alternative fuels, and soldier-portable power—and compares the innovation models of DARPA and ARPA-E. While the DoD is a powerful engine for technology, the report notes that its contributions to climate goals depend on the alignment of energy needs with the military's core security mission. It highlights the 'Installation Energy Test Bed' as a successful model for overcoming the 'Valley of Death' in technology commercialization.

The Obama administration's FY 2013 budget proposal emphasizes an "all of the above" energy strategy, prioritizing renewable energy, energy efficiency, and infrastructure. Key funding increases are directed toward the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, building technology research, and high-speed rail. The proposal also calls for the elimination of $4 billion in fossil fuel subsidies and a significant investment in surface transportation, funded by savings from reduced overseas military operations.