Search Climate Insights Directory

The report provides a cross-platform analysis of harmful online activity in the UK, identifying a complex ecosystem where disinformation, conspiracy theories, and extremism interlink. Using a dataset of 768 UK-relevant accounts, the study finds that while explicit hate speech is a small proportion of total messaging, extremist actors maintain significant reach on platforms like Facebook and YouTube. The research highlights a 'hybridised' threat landscape where anti-vaccine and anti-government narratives often blend into overt white supremacy, and notes a growing migration toward 'alt-tech' platforms such as Bitchute and Odysee.

The report analyzes 12 social media platforms and various fundraising mechanisms used by actors in the Irish mis- and disinformation ecosystem. It finds that Twitter (X) is the most popular platform for these activities, while Telegram has seen exponential growth as a hub for original content and Russian state-backed media. Mainstream platforms like Facebook and Instagram show a shift in focus from COVID-19 health misinformation toward anti-immigration narratives. Alternative platforms such as Gab, Gettr, BitChute, and Rumble are used to host more explicit hate speech, including Holocaust denial and neo-Nazism, often serving as storage for content that would be banned on mainstream sites. Additionally, the report identifies 41 entities using 27 different donation platforms, including Stripe and PayPal, often in violation of the platforms' terms of service regarding hate speech and disinformation.

The briefing argues that the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill could weaken UK pesticide regulation by granting ministers broad powers to revoke or amend EU-derived laws via secondary legislation with limited scrutiny. It highlights risks such as the 'sunset' clause causing accidental law expiry and the potential shift from a 'hazard-based' to a 'risk-based' authorisation approach. Specifically, the document warns that the Bill could be used to relax restrictions on neonicotinoids, contradicting the UK's 25 Year Environment Plan and the EU-UK Trade and Co-operation Agreement.

The text examines the crisis in UK higher education, highlighting industrial disputes led by the University and College Union (UCU) over pay, pensions, and precarious working conditions. It critiques the 'academic capitalism' model, where students are treated as customers and universities as businesses, noting that this system undermines the critical thinking needed to address climate change. The author advocates for the abolition of student fees, the democratisation of university governance, and a shift in mission toward leading radical transformations for a just and sustainable future.

The document provides a detailed guide on the rights of individuals and NGOs to participate in environmental decision-making in the UK, primarily through the framework of the Aarhus Convention. It outlines the specific requirements for three types of decisions: specific activities (Article 6), plans and policies (Article 7), and legislation (Article 8). The guide also discusses domestic UK consultation standards, such as the Sedley/Gunning principles and Cabinet Office Consultation principles, and provides advice on challenging deficient consultations through judicial review or the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee.

The document outlines the requirements for public participation in environmental matters in the UK, focusing on the three pillars of the Aarhus Convention: access to information, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice. It details the specific obligations for public authorities regarding activities, plans, and legislation that significantly affect the environment. Additionally, it explains domestic standards for fair consultation, including the Sedley/Gunning principles and Cabinet Office Consultation principles, and provides guidance on challenging deficient consultations through judicial review or the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee.

The document examines the intersection of power-sharing institutions and gender equality, noting that while power-sharing is a common tool for peacebuilding, it is often 'gender blind'. It argues that consociational models focusing on ethno-national identity can risk embedding patriarchal attitudes or sacrificing women's claims for equality to maintain communal unity. However, the authors suggest that because power-sharing already utilizes group proportions and quotas, it provides a 'natural environment' for securing gender-based quotas. The briefing highlights that power-sharing agreements are seven times more likely to have gender quotas than those without such provisions.

The author contends that the UK government is utilizing a 'Trump-style core vote strategy' to distract from pandemic failures and sustain the Leave coalition. This approach involves criminalizing protest, targeting minority groups such as Gypsy and Traveller communities, and undermining the rule of law and media independence. The text describes a breakdown of the 'good chap' model of governance, replaced by high-level cronyism and neoliberal failure. The author advocates for a positive alternative vision based on a just transition to a carbon-neutral society, proportional representation, and a move away from centralism.

ClientEarth's submission to the UK government's judicial review reform consultation expresses strong opposition to proposals that would limit court discretion, introduce prospective-only remedies, or strengthen ouster clauses. The organization argues that such reforms could lead to non-compliance with the Aarhus Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. While supporting the removal of the 'promptitude requirement' and the introduction of a formal 'Reply step', ClientEarth cautions against a 'track' system for claims and the restriction of interveners. The document emphasizes that environmental litigation is a critical tool for public accountability and that any reform must be evidence-based and cumulative in its impact assessment.

The report analyzes the legal and governance void created by Brexit, specifically the loss of the European Commission's enforcement role and the CJEU's jurisdiction. It examines the proposed Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) under the Environment Bill, the shift to 'retained EU law', and the risks associated with increased secondary legislation and resource shortages in agencies like the Environment Agency and Natural England. Case studies on air quality and pesticides illustrate the potential for regressive environmental standards and the loss of independent scientific oversight.

The report examines the tension between Ethiopian nationalists and ethno-nationalists, noting that while most agree on federalism, they disagree on its purpose. It analyzes three primary constitutional frameworks—consociationalism, centripetalism, and integration—and proposes five hybrid models to balance inclusion, moderation, and national cohesion. The author concludes that no single design is sufficient and recommends a negotiated blend of these mechanisms to ensure stability and protect individual and minority rights.

The document defines confidence-building measures (CBMs) as actions intended to increase trust and transparency between conflict parties. It categorizes CBMs into five types—political, economic, environmental, societal, and cultural—and outlines ten characteristics of successful measures, emphasizing the need for gendered conflict resolution analysis. The briefing highlights specific cases where women's engagement influenced peace processes in Yemen, Kenya, Senegal, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Colombia, Northern Ireland, and the former Yugoslavia, concluding with recommendations for gender-inclusive, multi-track approaches to peace.

This study examines how perceptions of peace agreements influence political trust in three post-war societies: Guatemala, Nepal, and Northern Ireland. Using a 2016 survey of 3,229 respondents, the authors find that approval of peace agreement provisions and the belief that these agreements have been implemented are positively associated with higher political trust. The analysis suggests that these perceptions provide significant explanatory power beyond conventional cultural and institutional theories of trust. Specifically, support for institutional reforms—such as demilitarization in Guatemala, federalization in Nepal, and power-sharing in Northern Ireland—serves as a primary driver of political trust.

The document defines transitional justice as a response to widespread human rights violations and argues that women's access and power in these processes are vital for sustained peace. It identifies core principles for gender justice, including gender equity and accountability for crimes against women and girls. Through case studies of Tunisia and Colombia, it demonstrates how women's participation can expand the definition of victimhood to include socio-economic harm and prohibit amnesty for sexual violence. The briefing also lists methods for active participation and identifies various barriers to women's engagement, such as cultural norms, physical distance from political centers, and the risk of re-victimization.

The paper examines the UK's handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, highlighting a lack of decisive government action, contradictory messaging, and failures in PPE procurement. It notes that while the public was largely compliant, trust was undermined by perceived double standards and the impact of long-term austerity on the NHS. The author argues that the pandemic exacerbated existing social inequalities, particularly for BAME groups, and converged with the political tensions of Brexit and the Black Lives Matter movement.

The UK's Climate Change Act 2008 established a legally-binding framework for emissions reductions, featuring long-term targets, five-year carbon budgets, and independent oversight by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC). While the UK successfully met its first two carbon budgets and reduced emissions by 44% below 1990 levels by 2018, it is currently not on track to meet its fourth and fifth budgets or its net-zero target. The legislation is noted for its political durability across different governments and its inclusion of climate adaptation governance, though it faces potential challenges from Brexit and the need to decarbonize more difficult economic sectors.

The document analyzes the UK's Climate Change Act 2008, highlighting its use of legally binding long-term targets, five-year carbon budgets, and the role of the independent Committee on Climate Change (CCC). It notes that while the UK successfully reduced emissions by 44% relative to 1990 levels by 2018, it faces challenges in meeting future carbon budgets and its 2050 net-zero target. The study suggests Canada could adopt similar frameworks, particularly regarding independent advisory bodies and the integration of adaptation planning into climate law.

Ember argues that the UK's priority should be to remain within the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) to maintain a shared Europe-wide approach to carbon pricing. The organization warns against the creation of a standalone UK ETS due to risks of market dysfunction and volatility, suggesting that if the UK must leave the EU ETS, it should implement a carbon tax on power, industry, and aviation with a price floor based on the previous year's average EU ETS price. Furthermore, Ember asserts that carbon pricing must be complemented by direct regulation and public funding to achieve net zero emissions.

The author argues that terrorism in Europe is primarily 'home grown' and driven by individuals who feel 'uprooted'. The text criticizes the 'war on terror' approach, stating that disproportionate repression breeds further terrorism and threatens democratic freedoms. It suggests that while intelligence and security measures are necessary to foil immediate plots, the long-term solution lies in mending the 'social fabric' and addressing global instabilities and Western geopolitical abuses that fuel extremist narratives.

The document argues that the CJEU's narrow interpretation of the NPE rule in Article 11(4) of the EIA Directive may discourage public challenges to unlawful environmental decisions by creating cost uncertainty for applicants.