Search Climate Insights Directory

The report analyzes the Mises Institute Network, a global group of ultra-libertarian think tanks, and its efforts to obstruct climate change mitigation. It finds that the network uses the philosophy of Ludwig von Mises to argue against state intervention and climate science, promoting 'free-market environmentalism' instead. While climate change was not a primary focus before 2016, there was a significant spike in opposition content in 2019, coinciding with the U.S. and EU Green Deal proposals. The network operates across 25 countries, utilizing social media and university presence to recruit young activists and employing climate contrarians to spread its messaging.

The authors warn that unilateral solar geoengineering research, particularly by the United States, risks deterring fossil fuel mitigation and concentrating power among elites. They argue that any such research must be multilaterally governed under the United Nations and preceded by inclusive public deliberations to avoid the militarization of planetary-scale climate interventions.

The document introduces three dimensions of justice—distributional, procedural, and recognitional—and argues that current climate justice debates suffer from three 'blind spots': a focus on effects over root causes, the false assumption that all climate action is just, and a lack of developed pathways to achieve climate justice.

The study analyzed 6.8 million tweets to determine the influence of bots on climate change discourse. While the immediate response to President Trump's announcement of the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement showed low bot presence, suspected bots were responsible for approximately 25% of original tweets before and after the event, particularly within denialist discourses.

The report finds a stark contrast between public support for climate action in Massachusetts and the actual legislative outcomes. While approximately 90% of public testimony supports environmental priorities, ambitious legislation is frequently blocked by powerful industry coalitions—most notably regulated utilities and the Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM). The study identifies four primary opposition coalitions: utilities, fossil and chemical companies, real estate, and power generation companies. It highlights that utilities are uniquely successful in steering policy, often opposing decentralized solar energy while supporting large-scale wind and hydro projects that benefit their business models. Furthermore, the report notes a shift in opposition rhetoric from climate denial to 'discourses of delay,' such as policy perfectionism and appeals to social justice. The authors conclude that the lack of transparency in the State House, combined with the immense spending power of corporate lobbyists, creates a hostile environment for ambitious climate policy.

The briefing expresses concern that ISO/WD 14082, intended to standardize the measurement of non-greenhouse gas climate forcers, may be used to create markets for 'climate coolants'. This would allow entities to offset greenhouse gas emissions by emitting reflective pollutants, potentially delaying decarbonization in sectors like shipping and aviation and undermining international climate accounting methods.

The Climate Social Science Network (CSSN) identifies key risks associated with advancing solar geoengineering research in the U.S., focusing on the potential for 'mitigation deterrence' where such research might reduce the urgency of decarbonization. The document questions the lack of social justice considerations, the influence of fossil fuel interests, and the absence of international governance frameworks. It also highlights the risks of overreliance on climate models and the potential for the militarization of geoengineering technologies.

The document describes a sophisticated 'denial machine' in the United States composed of ten key player types—including corporations, think tanks, and conservative media—that use a multi-tiered 'playbook' of long, medium, and short-term strategies to disseminate misinformation and block climate mitigation policies.

The document argues that while climate obstruction is well-studied in the Global North, it remains largely unexplored in the Global South. It proposes ten research themes to analyze how developmentalism, political leadership, transnational links, and domestic energy policies contribute to the delay of climate action. The authors highlight the role of 'organized hypocrisy' where sovereignty claims are used to shield unsustainable practices, and note the influence of external donors and the potential for green technology to create new socio-ecological injustices.

The document details how the Bolsonaro administration has systematically weakened Brazil's environmental state through institutional budget cuts, the exclusion of civil society from policy-making bodies like CONAMA, and the use of infra-legal decrees to bypass congressional scrutiny. It argues that these actions are driven by a coalition of agribusiness and mining interests seeking to expand into biomes such as the Amazon, Pantanal, and Cerrado. The authors highlight the fragility of environmental protections that rely on administrative decisions rather than legislative law and call for the establishment of more resilient protective mechanisms to prevent future reactionary attacks.

The research finds that both The New York Times and Wall Street Journal frame the Green New Deal as a "dangerous policy" by depicting its Millennial supporters as "extremist Millennial “Others.”" This discursive strategy of casting supporters as a threat is used to discredit the policy's viability and promote a market-based carbon tax as the only viable solution, thereby suppressing a diversity of political perspectives and stunting agonistic media pluralism.

The author contends that the 'No' campaign against the Australian Indigenous Voice to Parliament is not a grassroots movement but a strategic operation by the Atlas Network, a global infrastructure of neoliberal think-tanks. The paper links this effort to a long-term pattern of climate disinformation and opposition to environmental policy, suggesting that the Voice is opposed because it could empower Indigenous communities to challenge fossil-fuel projects. The author details the interlocking memberships between the Atlas Network, the Mont Pelerin Society, and Australian political figures, arguing that these networks use 'astroturfing' and disinformation to shift public opinion in favor of corporate interests.

The Climate Social Science Network has listed a group of scholars available for media consultation during COP 26. These experts, some attending in Glasgow and others available remotely, provide expertise across several key climate themes including climate finance, loss and damage, carbon markets, and the political dynamics of climate obstruction.