Search Climate Insights Directory

The report analyzes how the Russian War in Ukraine and subsequent Western sanctions have disrupted decades of energy diplomacy. While Russian crude oil exports proved resilient by redirecting volumes to India and China, the gas sector faced a severe crisis due to its reliance on European pipelines. The document details the use of 'shadow fleets' and blending to circumvent oil price caps and the limited feasibility of redirecting pipeline gas. It concludes that Russia is becoming increasingly dependent on China and that the focus on survival and new fossil fuel markets has marginalized its domestic low-carbon agenda.

The report analyzes how different audiences perceive the intersection of climate change and health and evaluates the effectiveness of various communication frames. It finds that framing climate change as a public health issue, particularly by emphasizing the health benefits of solutions (gain framing) and the harms of air pollution, can increase public engagement and reduce political polarization. The document highlights health professionals as highly trusted messengers who are generally willing to engage in advocacy but face barriers such as lack of time and specialized knowledge. It also notes that public officials exhibit varying levels of awareness and face institutional barriers to prioritizing climate-health issues. The report concludes with a research agenda calling for more diverse geographic data, better integration of equity in messaging, and the expansion of climate-health curricula in medical education.

The document argues that carbon markets and offsetting mechanisms are ineffective 'false solutions' that allow major polluters to continue emitting while causing harm to ecosystems and communities, particularly in the Global South. It details the mechanisms of the UNFCCC's Article 6, various regional and national carbon pricing initiatives, and provides strategies for civil society to resist these systems through advocacy, legal action, and community mobilization.

The document argues that carbon markets and emission offsets are ineffective at reducing emissions and instead serve as a distraction for major polluters while enabling extractivism and neocolonialism, particularly in the Global South. It details the mechanisms of the UNFCCC's Article 6, including the cooperative approaches of 6.2 and the UN-managed market of 6.4, as well as various regional and national systems in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas. The guide concludes by offering strategies for opposition, such as policy advocacy, community awareness, and legal challenges, while providing resources for tracking carbon projects.

The analysis reveals that only 24% of the 67 sampled countries demonstrated a climate risk responsive recovery. A significant paradox was identified: a country's income level was a stronger determinant of whether it used COVID-19 funds for adaptation than its actual climate vulnerability. High-income countries were more likely to integrate physical climate risks into their recovery plans, while the most vulnerable countries were the least likely to do so, with only Kenya and Vanuatu among the 20 most vulnerable countries approving explicit adaptation actions. Most responsive measures focused on water resources management, disaster prevention, infrastructure, and nature-based solutions, primarily targeting drought and flooding.

Global Witness asserts that the financial sector is failing to meet its voluntary deforestation pledges, noting that institutions without 'zero deforestation' policies invested $3.6 trillion in forest-risk companies last year. The author calls for financial leaders to support mandatory due diligence laws in the EU, UK, and US, and for Chinese banks to prioritize deforestation risks in their ESG guidance to prevent irreversible tipping points in forests like the Amazon.

The 2023 state of global environmental governance was characterized by a tension between significant multilateral achievements and deepening geopolitical fractures. While the world saw the adoption of the BBNJ treaty and the Global Framework on Chemicals, progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) remains dire, with only 15% of targets on track. Climate action reached a milestone with the first Global Stocktake (GST) in Dubai, calling for a transition away from fossil fuels, though critics noted the absence of a full phase-out. Geopolitical tensions, particularly Russia's invasion of Ukraine, have hindered scientific collaboration in the Arctic and increased the use of voting over consensus in treaty negotiations. Financial gaps remain a critical barrier, with calls for a New Global Financing Pact to address the needs of the Global South.

The report examines the information asymmetry between social media platforms and public interest researchers, identifying technological, legal, and ethical barriers to data access. It evaluates existing mechanisms such as transparency reporting, API access, and crowdsourced data donations, while analyzing the impact of the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA) and GDPR. The authors recommend the creation of an independent intermediary body to vet researchers and the alignment of international standards to ensure a safe, transparent, and evidence-based approach to studying the societal impacts of digital platforms.

The report details the outcomes of the 'Im toten Winkel' conference, highlighting how right-wing extremists employ a 'multi-platform strategy' combining mainstream sites like Facebook and X with alternative, decentralized platforms. Key findings emphasize the use of 'Fear Speech' to mobilize new supporters, the diversification of funding through cryptocurrencies and influencer-style memberships, and the role of TikTok in targeting younger audiences through pop-culture integration. The document also discusses the impact of the European Digital Services Act (DSA) and the necessity of interdisciplinary cooperation between researchers, authorities, and financial institutions to disrupt extremist networks.

The report examines the challenges and opportunities for researchers accessing social media data, focusing on the tension between data privacy and the public interest. It analyzes current tools like APIs and transparency reports, evaluates the impact of the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA), and proposes the creation of an independent intermediary body to manage researcher accreditation and data access across liberal-democratic states.

The document examines how emerging technologies—decentralised platforms, generative AI, and immersive environments—are exploited by malign actors to spread hate and disinformation. It argues that these technologies converge to amplify existing harms and calls for updated regulatory frameworks, international coordination, and 'Safety by Design' principles to mitigate these risks.

The report details how right-wing extremists in Germany employ a multi-platform strategy, combining mainstream sites like Facebook and X with alternative, decentralized platforms to avoid regulation and reach wider audiences. It highlights the use of 'fear speech' and 'everyday' topics to attract new sympathizers, the diversification of financing through cryptocurrencies and digital memberships, and the challenges of monitoring visual content on TikTok. The document also discusses the impact of the European Digital Services Act (DSA) and the necessity of a holistic approach involving research, regulation, and deradicalization.

The report analyzes the link between misogyny and violent extremist ideologies, arguing that OGBV serves as an ideological gateway to radicalization. It evaluates the failures of current platform community guidelines and algorithmic systems in addressing gendered violence and proposes a 'Safety and Privacy by Design' approach, improved API access for researchers, and standardized transparency reporting to combat these systemic risks.

The report examines online gender-based violence (OGBV) as part of a continuum of violence that links misogyny to various extremist ideologies, including far-right and Islamist extremism. It argues that platforms often exacerbate these risks through engagement-based algorithmic ranking and inadequate content moderation. To counter this, the author recommends that platforms provide vetted researchers with API access, implement gender-disaggregated transparency reporting, adopt victim-survivor-centred 'Safety by Design' principles, and enhance cross-platform cooperation to track perpetrators and coordinated harassment campaigns.

The report examines how 'decentralized', 'generative', and 'immersive' technologies are being exploited by malicious actors to spread hate and disinformation. It highlights the role of the Fediverse and Web3 platforms like Odysee in creating extremist echo chambers, the capacity of Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate persuasive misinformation and toxic content, and the potential for Extended Reality (XR) to enable severe emotional manipulation and virtual crimes. The authors argue for updated regulatory frameworks, including the EU AI Act and Digital Services Act, and emphasize the need for international coordination, safety-by-design, and new taxonomies for virtual harms.

The report examines Odysee, a video-hosting platform built on the LBRY protocol, as a case study for how blockchain technology enables the monetisation of far-right and conspiracy-related content. It identifies specific 'incentivised' affordances—such as LBRY Credits (LBC), rewards for activity, and tipping—that attract actors who have been demonetised on mainstream platforms. Through qualitative and financial analysis, the study finds that while the platform is not exclusively far-right, it serves as a 'safe haven' where established extreme-right figures can maintain their reach and generate income, though earnings are highly volatile due to the fluctuating price of LBC. The report argues that Odysee's claim of being 'censorship-resistant' is a fallacy, as the operators use geoblocking and delisting to manage content, and suggests that regulatory frameworks like the EU Digital Services Act should account for the specific risks of 'incentivised' business models and gamification.

The document identifies technological, ethical, legal, and fragmentation barriers that inhibit public interest research on smaller and medium-sized platforms. It argues that current regulatory frameworks, such as the EU's Digital Services Act, primarily target very large platforms, leaving a gap in oversight for smaller platforms that may still pose significant risks. The author provides recommendations for platforms to standardize data access, for policy-makers to introduce legal 'safe harbours' for researchers, and for the research community to collaborate on tools and ethical frameworks.

The report identifies significant obstacles to conducting public interest research on platforms like Telegram, Discord, and Odysee, noting that technological choices, unclear Terms of Service (TOS), and the designation of large groups as 'private' inhibit the systematic monitoring of extremist activity. Through case studies, the authors found that German-language far-right groups on Telegram, English-language religious extremists on Discord, and French-language neo-fascists on Odysee use these platforms to spread hate speech, anti-democratic ideologies, and calls for violence. The report argues that current regulatory frameworks, such as the EU's Digital Services Act, often rely on user-base thresholds that exclude these medium- and small-sized platforms, leaving a gap in oversight and research access.

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.