Search Climate Insights Directory

The 2024 IPIE expert survey reveals a growing pessimism about the global information environment, with 63% of respondents expecting conditions to worsen. Experts identify the availability of accurate information and diversity of opinion as the most critical characteristics of a healthy environment, while naming social media owners, governments, and politicians as the primary threats. Generative AI is viewed with mixed sentiment: 63% of experts believe it has negatively impacted the environment by scaling disinformation and bias, though 67% hope it will improve content detection and journalistic efficiency. To improve the environment, experts advocate for free and independent media and increased digital media literacy.

The 2024 IPIE expert survey indicates a growing pessimism about the global information landscape, with 63% of respondents expecting it to deteriorate. Experts identify the availability of reliable information and diversity of voices as essential for a healthy landscape, while naming social media platform owners and governments as the primary threats. Generative AI is viewed with mixed sentiment: while 67% hope it can improve content detection and journalism, 63% fear it will amplify biases, harassment, and misinformation. The report calls for support of independent media and improved data access for cross-platform, multidisciplinary research.

The 2024 IPIE expert survey reveals a growing pessimism about the global information environment, with 63% of respondents expecting it to worsen. Experts identify the availability of accurate information and diversity of voices as the most critical features of a healthy environment, while naming social media platform owners and governments as the primary threats. Generative AI is viewed as a double-edged sword: 63% of experts fear it will amplify bias and misinformation, although 67% see potential for improving content discovery and journalism. The report emphasizes the need for supporting independent media and overcoming data access barriers for researchers.

The 2024 IPIE expert consultation reveals a growing pessimism about the global information environment, with 63% of researchers expecting it to worsen. Experts identify the availability of accurate information and diversity of voices as the most critical characteristics of a healthy information environment. The owners of social media platforms, governments, and politicians are cited as the most significant threats. Generative AI is viewed with mixed sentiment: while 63% of experts fear it will amplify disinformation, harassment, and bias, 67% hope it will improve content detection and journalism. Experts advocate for free and independent media, digital literacy, and improved data access for multi-disciplinary research.

The 2024 IPIE expert survey reveals a growing pessimism about the global information environment, with 63% of respondents expecting it to worsen. Experts identify access to accurate information and diverse voices as critical for a healthy environment, while viewing social media owners, governments, and politicians as the primary threats. Generative AI is viewed with mixed sentiment: 63% fear it will increase bias and misinformation, while 67% hope it will improve content discovery and journalism. The report advocates for supporting independent media and improving data access for researchers.

The document highlights the disparity between the high profits of global chocolate companies and the poverty of cocoa farmers, particularly in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire. It argues that farmer poverty is a primary driver of environmental and social issues, including deforestation and child labor, and calls for companies to implement living income reference prices, fair contracts, and transparent reporting.

Average annual climate finance reached nearly USD 1.3 trillion in 2021/2022, nearly doubling from 2019/2020 levels, though this remains only 1% of global GDP. Growth was primarily driven by mitigation finance in energy and transport, with significant concentration in China, the US, Europe, Brazil, Japan, and India. Adaptation finance, while reaching a record USD 63 billion, remains severely underfunded compared to the USD 212 billion annual need for developing countries by 2030. The report highlights a critical investment gap, noting that annual needs will increase to between $8.1 and $9 trillion through 2030, and over $10 trillion annually from 2031 to 2050.

Global climate finance reached an annual average of nearly USD 1.3 trillion in 2021/2022, though this represents only 1% of global GDP. Mitigation finance dominates, particularly in energy and transport, while adaptation finance remains critically underfunded and dominated by public actors. Finance is heavily concentrated in developed economies and China, with significant gaps in least developed countries (LDCs) and emerging markets. The report argues that annual needs must increase at least five-fold to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, recommending reforms to international financial institutions and the mobilization of domestic capital.

The document outlines the technical framework for calculating the Net Zero financing gap, detailing the criteria for climate finance data collection, the sources used for needs assessments, and the regional breakdowns for investment analysis.

The report finds that climate finance for agrifood systems is strikingly low, representing only 4.3% of total global project-level climate finance in 2019/20, with an annual average of USD 28.5 billion. This is far below the estimated needs for climate transition, which are in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually. While agriculture and forestry receive the bulk of project-level funding, essential mitigation areas like food loss/waste and low-carbon diets receive less than 1% of such investments. Geographically, East Asia and the Pacific are the largest recipients of project-level finance, while the US and Canada dominate venture capital investments. The report suggests that repurposing existing public subsidies for agriculture and fisheries (USD 670 billion per year) and tapping into available private capital (USD 630 billion per year) could bridge the funding gap.

Climate finance for agrifood systems is critically low, representing only 4.3% of total project-level climate finance in 2019/20. The report highlights a massive investment gap, noting that current flows must increase at least sevenfold to meet conservative transition needs. While agriculture and forestry dominate project-level funding, essential mitigation areas like food loss and low-carbon diets are severely underfunded. The analysis reveals a heavy reliance on public funding (85%) and significant geographic disparities, with East Asia and the Pacific receiving the most finance, while South Asia and Latin America remain underserved relative to their emissions and vulnerability. The report advocates for repurposing harmful agricultural subsidies and leveraging private capital to scale climate-resilient and low-carbon food systems.

The Healthy NDC Scorecard 2023 analyzes 58 NDCs to evaluate the integration of health into national climate policies. While 90% of analyzed NDCs mention health and climate linkages, the report finds a significant mismatch between health recognition and actual climate ambition, particularly in G20 nations. Low- and middle-income countries generally achieved the highest health scores, while several high-income nations scored zero. The report recommends enhanced intersectoral collaboration, the quantification of health co-benefits to secure financing, and the exclusion of the fossil fuel industry from climate policymaking.

The report finds that global methane abatement finance reached USD 13.7 billion in 2021/22, yet remains far below the estimated annual need of USD 48 billion by 2030. While the AFOLU sector saw a 77% increase in funding, the fossil fuel sector—which has the highest mitigation potential—received less than 1% of tracked finance. Private sources provided 70% of total funding, primarily through debt and equity, while public finance declined by 10%. Geographically, East Asia and the Pacific, the U.S. and Canada, and Western Europe are the top recipients, leaving a significant support gap in Latin America and South Asia.

The document explains attribution studies—which use climate models to determine if and how much human-induced climate change affected a specific event—and provides guidance on reporting various extreme phenomena. It details how global warming increases the probability and intensity of heatwaves and heavy precipitation globally, while the effects on droughts, wildfires, and tropical cyclones vary by region or specific metric. It emphasizes that while climate change influences the risk and intensity of these events, human factors like land use and water management also contribute to whether an event becomes a disaster.

IDFC members reported a record $224 billion in green finance commitments in 2021, with climate finance accounting for 95% of the total. Mitigation finance reached $186.6 billion, while adaptation finance decreased by 24% to $20.9 billion. Biodiversity finance grew by 31% to $18.4 billion. The majority of climate finance was provided by non-OECD institutions and directed toward the East Asia and Pacific region.

The report finds that while global climate finance almost doubled between 2011 and 2020, reaching a cumulative USD 4.8 trillion, current growth rates are insufficient to meet climate goals. Preliminary 2021 estimates show an all-time high of USD 850–940 billion, driven largely by electric vehicle demand. However, a significant gap remains in adaptation finance, and continued fossil fuel subsidies in 51 major countries exceeded total global climate finance investment for the 2011-2020 period. The report argues that annual flows must reach USD 4.3 trillion by 2030 to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

The document finds that Sweden's five largest banks have limited alignment with the Paris Agreement, having facilitated approximately USD 150 billion to high-emitting 'brown' sectors since 2016. While 'green' investments have increased, they remain significantly lower than 'brown' and 'grey' flows. The authors argue that a lack of granular data and standardized definitions hinders transparency, recommending the adoption of International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) standards and EU-level regulations to better track the transition to a low-emission economy.

The study finds limited alignment with the Paris Agreement, as financing to high-emitting 'brown' sectors generally increased in volume since 2016, while 'green' investments remained marginal in absolute terms.

The document examines the environmental and human rights impacts of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, highlighting their contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss. It details the structural links between the fossil fuel and agrochemical industries, specifically the promotion of 'blue' ammonia and hydrogen using CCS as a means to secure long-term demand for natural gas. The text warns that this industrial model undermines food sovereignty and planetary boundaries, advocating for a transition to regenerative agricultural models.

The report finds that targeted methane abatement finance is severely underfunded, representing less than 2% of total climate finance at USD 11.6 billion in 2019/2020. Despite the high mitigation potential and availability of low-cost technologies, particularly in the fossil fuel sector, investment is disproportionately concentrated in the waste sector. The authors argue that a tenfold increase in annual finance is required to meet the estimated USD 119 billion needed to keep warming under +2C.