Search Climate Insights Directory

The 'Zagreb is OURS!' platform, established in February 2017, secured four seats in the Zagreb city assembly and significant representation in district and neighbourhood councils by employing a grassroots, participative approach to policy-making and campaigning. The movement sought to challenge the long-term authoritarian rule of Mayor Milan Bandić and the neoliberal policies of the Croatian Left through a strategy of 'one foot in the institutions, the other on the streets.' Its programme focused on sustainability, equality, and participation, specifically proposing reforms for waste management, public transport, and the decentralisation of decision-making power to local councils.

The author argues that the traditional vision of urban abundance is no longer realistic given systemic risks. By synthesizing theories from David Holmgren and the authors of 'Resilient Cities', the text outlines four potential futures: the Ecotechnic city (successful green transition), the Ecovillage city (radical semi-ruralization), the Enclaved city (authoritarian divide), and the Collapsed city (systemic breakdown). The author suggests that industrialized cities, including those in Europe, may soon reach a 'peak of urbanity' requiring a shift toward depopulation and economic relocalization.

The text examines the developmental gap between Poland's major metropolises and its smaller urban centers. It criticizes the 'polarization-diffusion' strategy of the 2000s, which favored large cities, and discusses the subsequent 'Strategy for Responsible Development' (SOR) under the PiS government. While noting issues like 'facade modernization' and local political stagnation, the author provides examples of small towns—such as Ostrów Wielkopolski and Słupsk—that have successfully implemented innovative housing, social integration, and revitalization projects by leveraging local potential rather than imitating Western models.

The Czech Greens, as part of Prague's governing coalition since 2014, struggle to implement sustainable urban visions against pro-business forces and a legacy of neoliberalism. Key conflicts center on restricting the power of private developers to ensure the provision of public goods and expanding public transport to reduce car dependency. While the party has successfully lowered public transport costs and improved developer transparency through new planning centers and public participation, they face significant opposition from coalition partners and developers who favor suburban expansion. The party also views the improvement of regional transport links as a strategic way to bridge the political divide between pro-European urban centers and Eurosceptic rural areas.

The document contends that the widespread panic regarding 'populism' as a threat to democracy is misplaced because populism is often a secondary ideology. The author distinguishes between left-wing populists, who are generally not anti-pluralist, and the radical right, whose threat to liberal democracy is rooted in xenophobic nationalism and anti-immigration agendas. The text highlights that the real danger lies in the broader corrosion of fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, often adopted by mainstream parties in the name of national security and identity.

The author contends that the current Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is insufficient for building sustainable food systems because it is too narrow in scope and focused on outdated productivist goals. The text proposes a 'Common Food Policy' to align disparate policies across health, environment, and trade, bridge the gap between EU-level governance and local experimentation, and shift from short-term economic priorities to long-term ecological and public health goals. It further suggests that such a policy could revive 'food democracy' by involving citizens and reducing the influence of agribusiness lobbies, thereby rebuilding the legitimacy of the European Union.

The text examines how regional governments and cities can maintain climate ambitions despite national withdrawals from international agreements, such as the US's proposed exit from the Paris Agreement. It highlights the Under2MoU as a global sub-national alliance and details Baden-Württemberg's legal and strategic approach to climate neutrality, while noting that regional success remains dependent on supportive national and EU frameworks.

The text emphasizes that while climate change is a global challenge requiring national commitments like the Paris Agreement, effective action is often anchored at the subnational level. It highlights the Under2MoU alliance, co-founded by Baden-Württemberg and California, as a model for regional leadership. The author, Franz Untersteller, details Baden-Württemberg's specific goals—including a 90% emission reduction by 2050—while noting that regional success is limited by the need for stronger regulatory frameworks from the German federal government and the European Union.

The author examines the logistical impossibility of evacuating a city the size of Houston (2.3 million people) during Hurricane Harvey and warns that European cities of similar or larger scales face comparable risks. The text highlights how a lack of zoning and the destruction of marsh lands increased Houston's vulnerability to flooding. To mitigate such risks, the author proposes that European governments use financial incentives to reduce urban density by encouraging companies and residents to relocate to smaller areas, while investing in sustainable public transportation to facilitate rapid evacuations.

The author examines the relationship between rising global military spending and international stability, arguing that the logic of deterrence often fails to eliminate threats like terrorism and can instead trigger security dilemmas. The text highlights a negative correlation between military spending and GDP growth, particularly in OECD countries, and suggests that diverting funds toward social policy could reduce radicalization. It proposes that the EU should prioritize integrated defense instruments, such as EU battlegroups, and strengthen arms control regulations to mitigate the risks of an inflationary arms race.

The author contends that European security requires a shift from simple integration to a multifaceted approach combining 'soft, hard, and smart power'. Key priorities include meeting the 2% GDP defense spending target through joint capabilities, securing external EU borders, supporting state-building in fragile neighboring countries, and investing in green technology and development in Sub-Saharan Africa to mitigate migration and instability caused by climate change.

The author contends that Europe is vulnerable to 'foreign economic statecraft' because it lacks a unified investment screening mechanism. While Chinese investment in high-tech sectors has surged, often driven by state-owned enterprises and strategic plans like 'Made in China 2025', the EU relies on a fragmented 'hodgepodge' of national regimes. The document highlights failures in Germany's response to the acquisitions of Kuka and Aixtron as evidence of this helplessness. It proposes that the EU should adapt legislation to help Member States block dangerous mergers and create a common consultative body to 'Europeanise' national decision-making, citing the US CFIUS model as a gold standard for such oversight.

The text analyzes the strategic objectives of the Islamic State (IS) in Europe—escalation, creating insecurity, and exploiting social divisions—and argues that restrictive anti-terrorism laws actually support these goals by fueling islamophobia and eroding civil liberties. It contends that IS is often portrayed as more cohesive and powerful than it is, noting that its core leadership consists of pragmatists from the Ba'ath party rather than global jihadists. The author advocates for a progressive response that rejects the 'clash of civilizations' narrative, opposes racial profiling, and views the expansion of civil rights for minorities as the most effective way to delegitimize IS and ensure genuine security.

The author contends that the rise of right-wing populism, Brexit, and Donald Trump are symptoms of a deeper structural crisis of neoliberalism and globalisation that began in the 1970s. This crisis is characterized by financialisation, stagnant wages, and an ecological crisis. The author argues that the Right has successfully monopolised the idea of national sovereignty to appeal to disenfranchised masses, while the Left has mistakenly viewed the nation-state as obsolete. The document calls for a 'progressive vision of national sovereignty' based on democratic economic control and social justice, which would allow for a renewed form of international cooperation on global issues like climate change.

The author contends that climate change acts as a 'threat multiplier' that exacerbates global instability, migration, and conflict, yet remains absent from public debate. The text proposes that the EU shift toward a 'geographic climate security policy'—modeled on UNEP's analysis of the Sahel—which assesses how climate factors intersect with political and security risks in specific territories. To implement this, the Greens suggest creating an EU Special Representative on Climate Security, mainstreaming climate security across all external policy funds, and reducing European dependency on fossil fuel imports from autocratic states to limit their ability to finance aggression.

The author contends that the 'feed the world' slogan used by industrial agriculture masks a system that exacerbates poverty and environmental degradation. The text argues that industrial farming fails the FAO's four criteria for food security—availability, accessibility, resilience, and quality—by promoting monocultures, seed concentration, and market speculation. It highlights how European agricultural subsidies and exports can destroy local rural economies in developing nations. As an alternative, the document promotes agroecology and peasant farming, which emphasize endogenous development, crop diversity, and ecological interaction to achieve genuine food sovereignty.

The author contends that Islamic State employs a strategy of provocation designed to trigger military escalation and social insecurity in Europe, which in turn fuels Islamophobia and recruitment. The document argues that orthodox security responses, which sacrifice personal freedoms for national security, actually support Islamic State's objectives by validating its narrative of Western aggression. It suggests that Islamic State is less coherent and powerful than portrayed, noting that its leadership includes pragmatic ex-Ba'ath Party officers and that many European attacks are 'outsourced' to individuals with limited organizational ties. The author advocates for a shift in policy where security is viewed as interdependent with civil liberties, arguing that bolstering the rights of minority communities and rejecting the 'clash of civilisations' narrative is the most effective way to delegitimize the group.

The author contends that the 'Feed the World' narrative used by agribusiness multinationals masks a system that exacerbates hunger and poverty. Industrial agriculture is criticized for destroying the natural resources it depends on, promoting dependency through food dumping and seed monopolies, and contributing significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. The text asserts that food insecurity is primarily caused by poverty rather than structural shortages. It proposes a shift toward endogenous development, intercropping, and agroecology to ensure a resilient, high-quality, and accessible food system.

The document examines the multifaceted nature of security in Europe, contrasting the 'politics of fear' used by national populists with a progressive vision of security. It analyzes threats ranging from terrorism and digital vulnerabilities to energy insecurity and climate change, while emphasizing that social investment and the protection of civil liberties are more effective tools for stability than mass surveillance or militarisation. The text specifically critiques the 'securitisation' of migration and the role of the state in managing perceived risks.

The author criticizes the Polish government's 'Assumptions for the development of inland waterways in Poland for 2016-2020 with a perspective to 2030', which aims to canalize the Vistula and Odra rivers. The text argues that these plans contradict the EU Water Framework Directive and other environmental directives, risking the destruction of Natura 2000 sites. It claims that the projects will exacerbate droughts and floods, create water conflicts with the coal-based energy sector, and incur massive public costs—estimated at nearly 20 billion euros by 2030—without providing realistic economic benefits. The author advocates for a shift toward local community management, sustainable ecotourism, and adapting vessels to the rivers' natural states instead of modifying the rivers for large barges.