Search Climate Insights Directory

The author develops a conceptual framework to analyze how non-domestic proxy actors attempt to hold governments and corporations accountable for the social and ecological damages of natural resource extraction in rentier states. Using the Democratic Republic of the Congo as a model, the paper identifies an 'hourglass' structure of engagement: proxies first define standards remotely, then seek compliance information from affected communities, and finally seek sanctions remotely, which can widen the gap between the proxies and the communities they represent.

The research identifies the Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie (EIKE) as a "denialist stronghold" in Germany, utilizing communication frames—specifically attacks on climate science—to foster a discourse of climate denial and delay. While EIKE attempts to obstruct climate action, the study concludes that its ideas have been "critically received by the press."

A study of BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell from 2009 to 2020 reveals a significant gap between the companies' increasing use of climate-related discourse and their actual financial investments, which remain heavily dependent on fossil fuels.

A survey of 3,032 Norwegians indicates that a lack of trust in environmental institutions is strongly associated with the denial of anthropogenically caused climate change (ACC). This distrust and denial are further influenced by anti-elitist attitudes, opposition to migration, and specific views of nature.

The study tracks Total's transition from receiving early warnings of catastrophic global warming in 1971 to a strategy of promoting scientific doubt in the late 1980s, and finally to a position of public acceptance of climate science coupled with policy delay by the late 1990s. It also notes Exxon's role in coordinating an international campaign via IPIECA to dispute climate science and weaken policy starting in the 1980s.

Research by Núria Almiron and Jose A. Moreno suggests that focusing on 'denialism' oversimplifies the reasons for political inaction on climate change. While climate change denialism is influential in the United States, the authors argue that it cannot explain inaction in the US or Europe, and they call for a framework that identifies a broader spectrum of responsibilities beyond simple denial.

The research analyzes 130 case studies from the past decade to examine social mobilization against energy infrastructure, including low-carbon options. It identifies how national institutions and responses to global pressures influence the varying politics of energy transitions across different countries and energy types.

The report defines 'climate-washing' as a subset of greenwashing specifically targeting climate change claims and examines the rising trend of litigation used to hold state and non-state actors accountable. It categorizes misleading communications into three areas: corporate/governmental commitments (such as net-zero pledges), product attributes (such as labeling natural gas as 'clean'), and the disclosure of financial risks and investments. The authors highlight a gap between public climate pledges and actual emission reductions, noting that many companies continue to invest in fossil fuels while advertising clean energy. The document provides recommendations for companies, policymakers, NGOs, and lawyers to combat disinformation and increase transparency.

The document analyzes thirty years of UN climate negotiations, arguing that countries in the Global North, particularly the United States, have consistently and deliberately obstructed the creation of a loss and damage finance mechanism. It divides this history into four periods: the initial efforts from 1991 to 2007, the lead-up to the Warsaw International Mechanism (2008-2013), the road to the Paris Agreement (2014-2015), and the post-Paris era (2016-present). The author highlights how advocates from the Global South, including AOSIS and the G77, shifted their framing from legal liability to moral risk to gain traction, while obstructionists used tactics such as conflating loss and damage with adaptation, proposing limited insurance alternatives, and explicitly excluding liability and compensation from official texts, most notably in Paragraph 51 of the Paris Agreement decision.

The document argues that carbon offsetting is often used to justify continued emissions and delay the necessary phase-out of fossil fuels. It distinguishes between 'avoidance offsets', which are deemed incompatible with net zero goals, and 'removal offsets', which face significant challenges regarding permanence, additionality, and scale. The authors contend that the current carbon market reproduces global inequalities and risks negative social outcomes, particularly in land-based projects. They recommend that governments and businesses eliminate avoidance offsets, prioritize direct emission reductions, and fund necessary carbon removals through non-market mechanisms such as public financing or mandates.

The research evaluates the risk of 'mitigation deterrence,' where the pursuit of greenhouse gas removal (GGR) technologies may discourage urgent emissions reductions. Through nine deliberative workshops, the authors analyzed the political and economic mechanisms of this 'attraction of delay' and identified discursive strategies used by GGR advocates to deflect these concerns. The paper concludes that mitigation deterrence is a significant issue that must be recognized in climate policy and suggests governance frameworks to ensure GGR does not replace carbon reduction.

The report finds overwhelming public and organizational support for priority climate legislation in Connecticut, yet a significant gap exists between this support and legislative outcomes. While 91.7% of testimony positions supported priority bills, most legislation died in committee. The study highlights a stark imbalance in lobbying resources, with electric and gas utilities spending over $24 million—far exceeding the spending of environmental groups and renewable energy firms. Opposition to climate action has shifted from denying climate science to employing 'climate delay' discourses, such as arguing that Connecticut is too small to matter or that policies would disproportionately harm low-income residents.

A conjoint survey experiment of 2,145 participants found that clean energy policy support is highest when job creation frames are delivered by business or environmental groups. The research indicates that effective message-source combinations generally do not backfire across different partisan groups and can increase support regardless of political affiliation.

The study analyzed over 6,000 English-language Twitter posts following the release of the IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land. It found that meat consumption and dietary options emerged as highly discussed and contentious topics, exhibiting toxicity levels comparable to previous climate science skepticism, suggesting a shift in public controversy from the science of climate change to its proposed solutions.

The document examines the role of economic consultants hired by the petroleum industry to undermine US climate policy initiatives. It argues that these consultants used models that inflated costs and ignored benefits, presenting their industry-sponsored findings as independent to delay policies such as carbon pricing and international climate agreements.

The research argues that litigation against individual fossil fuel companies is an ineffective mitigation strategy because it ignores the systemic nature of growth-dependent capitalism and the ability of corporations to absorb legal costs. The author suggests that changing the law to provide systemic recourse and pursuing fossil fuel nationalisation would be more effective than pursuing individual offenders.

The study analyzes 122 demand-side low-carbon energy innovations within Ontario's energy technology innovation system (ETIS) to evaluate their alignment with energy justice frameworks. While availability, affordability, and information are generally addressed, the study finds a lack of user involvement and a systemic bias toward private businesses over marginalized groups like renters and low-income households. The research highlights that government-delivered or regulated providers are more likely to prioritize energy justice than decentralized actors.

The research examines the Climate Change Counter Movement Hyperlink Network to determine how climate delaying and obstruction discourse diffuses across national borders. The analysis identifies cohesive subgroups of think tanks and coal-related organisations, as well as an alignment between the counter-movement and the traditional Wise Use Movement.

The essay asserts that the dominant philosophy and institutional structures of global conservation are rooted in colonialism and racism. It highlights the rise of "militarized conservation" and the appropriation of indigenous rights arguments to support exclusionary protected-area models, concluding that systemic institutional reform and NGO accountability are necessary.

The report examines the intersection of the COVID-19 pandemic and climate breakdown through the lens of political ecology, arguing that both stem from structural capitalist crises and calling for the development of alternative futures.