Search Climate Insights Directory

The document analyzes proposed budget cuts in the FY2018 'skinny' budget, highlighting the elimination of bipartisan programs for low-income energy assistance, climate research, and rural transportation. It details specific reductions across the USDA, DOE, EPA, NASA, and the Department of State, arguing that the 'America First' approach prioritizes physical security and fossil fuels over climate resilience and international cooperation.

The document is a formal letter of opposition to S. 2446, asserting that the bill would dismantle critical public health and environmental safeguards established by the EPA's 2014 coal ash rule. The signatories argue that the legislation would eliminate requirements for cleaning up toxic releases, remove national drinking water protection standards, and delay the closure of unstable coal ash impoundments, thereby increasing risks for vulnerable communities and the environment.

The report examines 'water balance' goals, where companies aim to restore a volume of water equivalent to what they consume. While these goals provide clear communication and incentive for action, the document argues that they must be grounded in local basin contexts and collective action to avoid 'greenwashing' and effectively mitigate physical, regulatory, and reputational risks. It highlights the transition toward 'context-based targets' aligned with Sustainable Development Goal 6.

The document is a declaration calling for the end of fossil fuel exploration and extraction to address the climate crisis and mass extinction. It demands a just transition to a democratized, 100% renewable energy system, the removal of fossil fuel industry influence from policymaking, and the recognition of the rights of Indigenous and frontline communities.

The document argues that the Arecibo Waste-to-Energy and Resource Recovery Project is unnecessary, economically unviable, and environmentally hazardous. It claims the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) fails to meet National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) standards by ignoring reasonable alternatives, underestimating public health risks—particularly lead exposure in a non-attainment area—and omitting cumulative impacts on human health and biological resources. The authors contend that the project violates the Rural Electrification Act's mandate to serve rural areas and would cause irreversible damage to the Caño Tiburones Natural Reserve.

A coalition of 290 organizations and individuals opposes H.R. 1734, asserting that the bill would weaken the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 2014 coal ash rule. The signatories argue the legislation would delay health protections, eliminate public access to information, and remove national standards for drinking water protection, thereby increasing risks to vulnerable communities and the environment.

The document outlines the GSA's National Deep Energy Retrofit (NDER) Program and provides a framework for achieving energy savings of 50% or more in federal buildings. It highlights the effectiveness of bundling energy conservation measures (ECMs), engaging diverse stakeholders, and utilizing a 'technical potential' tool to identify aggressive energy goals. Case studies, such as the Almeric Christian Federal Building, demonstrate the feasibility of net-zero energy through the ESPC process, while data analysis shows that NDER projects achieved an average of 38% energy savings, more than double the 18.5% average of non-NDER federal ESPC projects.

A coalition of 103 environmental and health organizations is urging the EPA to finalize the Definition of Solid Waste (DSW) rule, arguing that delays in regulation have led to significant environmental damage and disproportionately impacted low-income communities and people of color.

The Climate Impact Equity Lens (CIEL) is an illustrative tool that compares individual climate damages against the savings gained from not reducing greenhouse gas emissions. By analyzing factors such as income, economic vulnerability, coastal exposure, and water availability, CIEL demonstrates that regional averages mask a wide diversity of impacts. The report finds that while some individuals are currently 'net winners' due to avoided emission costs, the majority of the global population, including the least vulnerable, will likely become 'net losers' by 2150 as climate damages escalate.

The report challenges the 'miracle crop' narrative of jatropha, presenting ten reasons why industrial-scale plantations fail. It argues that jatropha requires fertile land, significant water, and chemical inputs to be productive, contradicting claims that it thrives on marginal land. This leads to competition with food production, displacement of local communities, and biodiversity loss. Economically, the report highlights a pattern of failed investment projects and unrealistic yield promises. Environmentally, it asserts that land-use change for jatropha can increase carbon emissions, undermining its purpose as a climate solution.

The report outlines how tropical forests can be transitioned from net carbon emitters to net sinks through the REDD+ framework. It details specific reforestation, restoration, and sustainable production forestry techniques, while emphasizing the necessity of 'additional' carbon benefits beyond business-as-usual baselines. The authors argue that achieving zero net emissions by 2030 requires a combination of reducing deforestation and scaling up sequestration activities, supported by international financial incentives and national policies that protect biodiversity and the rights of indigenous and local communities.

The IAI Directorate Report details a period of significant scientific productivity contrasted with a severe core funding crisis caused by member country non-payments. While the institute successfully advanced research on ecosystem boundaries, urban emissions, and Andean biodiversity, it faced operational disruptions, including temporary salary halts and the cancellation of travel for international climate negotiations. The report emphasizes the transition of the IAI from a funding agency to an active participant in science-policy dialogue and highlights the need for sustainable financial commitments from member states.

The Caribbean Coastal Scenarios (CCS) project models the flow of water, sediments, and contaminants from inland watersheds to coastal ecosystems in several Caribbean island nations. Initial findings highlight the degradation of water quality due to dams, sewage, and deforestation, specifically noting wastewater treatment gaps in Puerto Rico and agricultural runoff in the Dominican Republic.

The document describes a study using proxy data and sediment records to reconstruct Atlantic hurricane activity from 500 AD to the present. It finds that hurricane activity peaked during the Medieval period (900-1100 AD), rivaling current levels, and correlates higher sea surface temperatures with increased hurricane frequency.

The document describes a study using proxy data—statistical climate models and sedimentary records—to reconstruct Atlantic hurricane activity from AD 500 to the present. It finds that while there is a current peak in activity, a similar peak occurred during the medieval period (AD 900-1100), which was associated with warm Atlantic sea surface temperatures. The research indicates that hurricane activity decreased after AD 1500, coinciding partly with the Little Ice Age, before increasing again after 1850 and especially after 1980.

The report challenges the promotion of jatropha as a 'wonder crop' for biofuels, using evidence from Swaziland to argue that it may compete with food production, require significant water and chemical inputs, and offer marginal economic benefits to small-scale farmers. It highlights concerns over unfair contracting practices by D1 Oils and the lack of environmental risk assessments, concluding that jatropha is not a sustainable 'silver bullet' for meeting EU and UK biofuel targets.

The IAI CRN program has established a broad network of scientists and institutions across the Americas and globally, leveraging over US$ 20.7 million in additional funds. The initiative has supported 429 students and produced a significant volume of refereed publications between 1999 and 2003. Specific project summaries highlight research on climate variability in Mesoamerica, water quality in the Andean Amazon, ENSO risk management, biodiversity in grasslands and forests, and the impacts of cattle ranching on deforestation in Brazil, Peru, and Ecuador.

The Reefs at Risk Caribbean project workshop focused on improving a threat assessment model for coral reefs using proxy indicators. Key discussions centered on refining data for coastal development, watershed-based pollution, overfishing, and coral bleaching. Participants recommended incorporating higher-resolution data, adjusting population density metrics for fishing pressure, and treating coral bleaching and disease as separate analysis layers rather than integrated threat model components. The workshop also addressed the need for better mapping of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and the economic valuation of reefs.

The IAI Director's report details the institute's growth to 18 member countries by March 1998 and the administration of its Initial Science Program (ISP) and Climate Research Network (CRN). Key programmatic highlights include a strong funding focus on ENSO and interannual climate variability, the establishment of a Core Group for Caribbean countries, and partnerships with organizations like NOAA, NASA, and the WMO. The report also outlines financial strategies through Joint Funding Resource Agreements (JFRA) and the development of a Summer Training School at the University of Miami.

The testimony argues that the GATT Uruguay Round Final Agreement is undemocratic and environmentally hazardous. It claims the agreement's dispute resolution mechanisms exclude public participation and that its 'least trade restrictive' standard for Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures would jeopardize numerous U.S. environmental and food safety laws. The author further asserts that the agreement lacks sufficient safeguards to prevent a 'race to the bottom' in environmental standards and that the proposed World Trade Organization (WTO) creates an unaccountable bureaucracy.