Search Climate Insights Directory

A coalition of European civil society organisations (CSOs) is protesting a campaign of disinformation led by some Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) from the European People’s Party (EPP) and far-right groups. The attack specifically targets the legitimacy of public funding for environmental NGOs under the LIFE programme. The statement argues that independent CSOs are essential for a functioning democracy and a fully informed decision-making process, contrasting the modest public grants received by NGOs with the high spending of corporate lobbyists in Brussels.

A coalition of NGOs, including ClientEarth and WWF, argues that the European Commission's current approach to revising the EU fisheries control system violates 'Better Regulation Guidelines' by omitting a mandatory 12-week online public consultation. The NGOs contend that previous consultations from 2015/2016 are insufficient and that the current timeline fails to incorporate critical pending data on small-scale fisheries monitoring and engine power verification.

The report outlines a stepwise process for EU Member States to develop National Restoration Plans (NRPs) to meet the legally binding targets of the Nature Restoration Law (NRL), which aims to restore 20% of land and sea areas by 2030 and all degraded ecosystems by 2050. It details legal requirements for monitoring, quantification, and stakeholder engagement, while emphasizing the need for policy coherence with the Renewable Energy Directive, Common Agricultural Policy, and Common Fisheries Policy. The document provides 14 specific recommendations to ensure NRPs are ambitious, evidence-based, and well-funded through a mix of public and private sources.

The document argues that EMFAF funds are being used in ways that contradict EU environmental goals and international obligations, specifically by underfunding marine biodiversity and failing to prioritise small-scale fisheries. It highlights a systemic gap where 5–12% of funds are allocated to environmentally harmful subsidies, exceeding biodiversity spending by more than twofold. Analysis of several Member States shows that most fall far below a recommended 25% allocation for conservation and restoration. The brief also warns that proposed changes to the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) risk further diluting these priorities by removing the EMFAF as a stand-alone fund and lacking mandatory spending targets for biodiversity and the decarbonisation of the fishing fleet.

A joint letter from NGOs calling for an increase in EU funding for fisheries monitoring and enforcement to ensure compliance with the Common Fisheries Policy.

The document asserts that the current EU Fisheries Control System fails to deter IUU fishing due to a lack of implementation and harmonisation of sanctions across Member States. It highlights that negligible fines allow offenders to treat sanctions as a "basic cost of doing business" and notes that the penalty point system is "not fit for purpose" because seriousness criteria vary by state. The factsheet supports the European Commission's proposal to introduce mandatory administrative sanctions with minimum fine levels and objective EU-wide criteria for serious infringements. ClientEarth further recommends expanding the list of serious infringements to include turning off AIS transmitters and failing to mitigate the accidental catch of sensitive species.

The Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP) and ClientEarth challenge the UK government's (DECC) justification for a market-wide Capacity Mechanism, asserting that the analysis of generation adequacy is overly conservative and ignores the potential of demand response and interconnectors. They argue that a targeted strategic reserve would be a more cost-effective and less distortive alternative, especially given Ofgem's planned reforms to the Balancing Mechanism which would introduce stronger scarcity pricing signals.

A collective statement from individuals across various faith traditions calling on the U.S. Congress to reject a proposed 'fossil fuel immunity bill'. The authors argue that such legislation would shield corporations from legal accountability for climate damages, violating the moral principle that those who cause harm must be held responsible. They contend that the bill would block 'polluter pays' laws and shift the financial burden of climate disasters from the responsible corporations to taxpayers and affected families.

Carbon Market Watch outlines ten key elements for effective carbon pricing, arguing that such systems must be integrated into a broader policy mix, utilize absolute declining caps, and eliminate free allocations and offsets. The briefing emphasizes the need for transparency, the reinvestment of revenues into climate action and vulnerable communities, and the use of carbon border levies to prevent leakage without protecting polluting industries. It concludes that carbon pricing is a tool to be used alongside regulations and democratic engagement, rather than a standalone solution for decarbonization.

The Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor (CCRM) 2025 finds that corporate climate action is frequently treated as a marketing exercise rather than a business model redesign. While some companies like Inditex and Adidas have improved their target setting, the report highlights widespread 'creative accounting' and greenwashing. Key issues include the use of unbundled Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) in tech and fashion, the conflation of land-based carbon removals with emission reductions in agrifood, and the use of unsubstantiated carbon credits to claim carbon neutrality. The document argues that voluntary standards are insufficient and calls for stringent government regulation, specifically citing EU directives like the CSRD and CSDDD, to mandate transparent reporting and ban product-level carbon neutral claims.

The report by Carbon Market Watch outlines a framework for 'carbon pricing done right,' arguing that such systems must be integrated into broader policy packages and based on strict emission caps to be effective. It emphasizes the 'polluter pays principle,' warning against free allocations and offsets, which it claims can weaken price signals and lead to greenwashing. The document advocates for transparency, the reinvestment of revenues into climate action and vulnerable communities, and a cautious approach to carbon leakage and border adjustment mechanisms to avoid protectionism while ensuring climate justice.

The report 'Climate Change in the Irish Mind' details a 2021 survey of 4,000 Irish adults. It finds overwhelming consensus that climate change is happening and human-caused, with high levels of personal worry and trust in scientists. There is strong public support for government climate action, including carbon tax spending on clean energy and transport, and a general belief that climate action will improve economic growth and quality of life. While many express willingness to take political and consumer actions, actual current participation in organized campaigns remains low.

The report analyzes international public opinion on climate change, finding widespread belief that it is happening and a general desire for increased government action, though levels of worry and perceived personal risk vary significantly by country.

The document examines the 'hunger-climate-conflict nexus,' where food insecurity acts as a 'threat multiplier' for instability. It argues that while military forces have historically played ad-hoc support roles in humanitarian aid, the increasing frequency of climate-driven food crises necessitates a shift in military training, doctrine, and interagency coordination. The author highlights barriers to this transition, including the risk of 'over-securitisation' and existing institutional silos between defence and development agencies, while specifically noting the implications for the Irish Defence Forces regarding peacekeeping and domestic disaster response.

Earthjustice argues that hydraulic fracturing (fracking) poses grave and irreversible risks to human health and the environment, citing extensive evidence from the United States. The organization contends that the Government of Mendoza's Decree No. 248/18 was issued without sufficient technical research or baseline data, violating the precautionary principle. Earthjustice requests the court to nullify the decree and suspend fracking activities until comprehensive scientific studies on air pollution, water contamination, radioactive waste, and induced seismicity are conducted.

The report identifies 67 planned coal-to-biomass projects in the EU that could increase biomass consumption by 607 PJ per year, potentially tripling the current levels of biomass burnt in coal power plants. This expansion would require approximately 36 million tonnes of wood pellets annually, which is similar to current global production. The authors argue that these projects are expensive, rely on public subsidies, and risk accelerating climate change because the CO2 emitted during combustion is not reabsorbed quickly enough to meet Paris Agreement targets. The report highlights that five countries—Finland, Germany, Ireland, Spain, and the Netherlands—are responsible for most of this potential growth, with the Netherlands accounting for 25%.

The paper outlines an adaptive approach to electricity policy for a hypothetical jurisdiction, focusing on modernizing rate design and market structures to integrate distributed energy resources (DERs). It argues that traditional cost-of-service models are outdated due to technological advances in home automation and on-site generation. The author proposes four key principles for retail rates—cost causation, transparency, adaptability, and customer sophistication—and four principles for market structure—level playing fields, grid stability, innovation, and transparency. The framework is designed to be applicable to both vertically integrated utilities and market-based systems, emphasizing the use of Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs) and Integrated Distribution Plans (IDPs) to ensure long-term system optimization.

The document argues that fossil fuels act as weapons of mass destruction, contributing to 86% of CO2 emissions in the last decade. It analyzes the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Mine Ban Treaty, and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons to provide a roadmap for a similar global fossil fuel regime. The brief identifies four pivotal areas for success: building an evidence base through civil society reporting, igniting conversations via city and parliamentarian advocacy, shifting the narrative from defense to humanitarian issues, and convening pioneering countries through regional bans and strategic conferences. It also details treaty elements such as prohibitions, victim assistance obligations, and the role of implementation agencies like the IAEA and OPCW.

The report documents a series of interregional exchanges between youth activists from Africa and Europe, focusing on the intersection of environmental justice, colonialism, and systemic oppression. It provides practical learning tools for analyzing historical inequalities and dismantling patriarchy, while highlighting the challenges of interregional solidarity, such as visa restrictions for African activists. Personal testimonies emphasize the impact of industrial pollution in South Africa and the marginalization of youth in Liberia, arguing that true climate justice requires freedom of movement and a genuine commitment to listening to the Global South.

The document is a zine detailing a cross-regional exchange between youth activists from Africa and Europe. It focuses on dismantling systemic oppressions like patriarchy and colonialism, challenging visa injustices that hinder Global South participation in climate governance, and promoting intergenerational learning within the environmental justice movement.