Search Climate Insights Directory

Gulfport, Mississippi, faces increasing flood risks from sea level rise, land subsidence, and the loss of coastal wetlands. These vulnerabilities are compounded by a history of racial segregation and incompatible land use, which has left low-income Black communities like Turkey Creek and North Gulfport more exposed to disasters. Recovery from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita was uneven, with disaster aid arriving slower in communities of color and a significant decline in affordable housing. Local organizations are now advocating for wetland protection, equitable distribution of RESTORE Act funds, and better linguistic accessibility in disaster response for Vietnamese-American fishing communities.

Plaquemines Parish faces extreme risks from relative sea level rise and land subsidence, which is exacerbated by oil and gas operations and upstream flood control. The region has lost 2,300 square miles of wetlands since 1932, leaving communities vulnerable to storm surges and flooding. Predominantly Black communities, such as Ironton and Woodland, experience a confluence of socioeconomic vulnerability and pollution from refineries and coal terminals. While Louisiana's 2012 Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast proposes a $50 billion investment in defenses like the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion, critics argue the plan may use inadequate sea level rise projections and fail to protect all communities. Local residents emphasize the need for equitable resource distribution and local employment in restoration projects to ensure communities are made whole.

The document advocates for increasing electric vehicle (EV) availability in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, noting that while 55% of regional consumers are interested, availability lags significantly behind California. It calls for the expiration of a regulatory exemption that allows sales in California to count toward compliance in Northeast states and suggests updating ZEV program credits to account for rapid improvements in battery range.

The document argues that while climate change does not cause hurricanes, it fuels stronger North Atlantic storms and increases their damage through sea level rise and heavier rainfall. It highlights specific risks to US military installations, power grids, and historic sites, while noting that low-income and minority communities face disproportionate hazards and recovery challenges.

The Union of Concerned Scientists evaluated BP on 30 metrics, finding that while the company acknowledges climate science and supports a carbon price, it fails to distance itself from trade associations that spread disinformation and lacks a company-wide emissions reduction plan.

The Cerrado, Brazil's second largest biome, is a biodiversity hotspot and critical carbon sink that has seen over half of its native vegetation cleared, primarily for soy and cattle production. While the Amazon has seen a decrease in deforestation, the Cerrado has faced increasing pressure, with deforestation rates surpassing the Amazon by 2011. The document highlights the biome's unique underground carbon storage and warns that climate mitigation policies favoring afforestation and fire suppression may inadvertently harm this fire-adapted ecosystem.

The report evaluates the climate risk disclosure practices of several major fossil fuel companies, including Arch Coal, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, CONSOL Energy, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy, and Royal Dutch Shell. It scores companies across four categories: regulatory risks, physical risks, market/indirect risks, and corporate governance. While most companies provide detailed analysis of regulatory risks, the report finds widespread failures in disclosing the specific role of climate change in physical risks and a near-total absence of disclosure regarding corporate governance on climate issues.

The report evaluates the climate policy engagement of several major fossil fuel companies, including BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Arch Coal, CONSOL Energy, and Peabody Energy. It uses a scoring system to measure their support for federal carbon reduction policies, their responses to the EPA Clean Power Plan and Methane Rule, and their participation in climate-supportive business alliances. Findings range from 'Good' scores for companies like BP, which supports carbon pricing and the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, to 'Poor' or 'Egregious' scores for companies like Peabody Energy, which the report claims used climate science disinformation to oppose the Clean Power Plan.

The Climate Accountability Scorecard evaluates the climate-related actions and disclosures of several major fossil fuel companies, including BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Arch Coal, CONSOL Energy, and Peabody Energy. The report assigns scores based on criteria such as support for the Paris Agreement, the use of internal carbon pricing, and the transparency of greenhouse gas emissions reporting. Findings indicate a widespread lack of company-wide emissions reduction plans and varying levels of transparency regarding low-carbon research and development investments.

The report evaluates several major fossil fuel companies—including BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, and CONSOL Energy—on their accountability regarding climate change. It uses a scoring system to measure the accuracy of their public statements, their governance policies to prevent disinformation, and their responses to shareholder resolutions. The findings indicate a wide disparity in corporate behavior, with some companies like Shell and BP acknowledging the need for emissions reductions, while others like ExxonMobil and Chevron are flagged for misrepresenting science or actively blocking shareholder efforts to address climate risks.

The Union of Concerned Scientists evaluated eight major fossil fuel companies—Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, ConocoPhillips, Peabody Energy, CONSOL Energy, and Arch Coal—across four key areas of climate responsibility. The analysis found that all eight companies maintain memberships in trade associations that spread climate disinformation and none have developed a company-wide plan to align their business models with the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. While BP and Shell were noted for affirming climate science in direct communications, and BP and ConocoPhillips scored 'good' on general political spending oversight, the report concludes that the industry as a whole fails to take appropriate responsibility for the climate impacts of its products.

The Union of Concerned Scientists developed a scorecard to assess eight major fossil fuel companies—including Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, ConocoPhillips, Peabody Energy, CONSOL Energy, and Arch Coal—on their climate responsibility. The methodology employs 30 metrics across four areas: renouncing disinformation, planning for a carbon-free world, supporting effective climate policies, and disclosing climate risks. The assessment focuses on the period from January 2015 to May 2016, utilizing public filings, corporate reports, and third-party data. Notably, the document states that no assessed companies met the standard required to be scored on the execution of their carbon-reduction plans.

The document argues that electrifying heavy-duty vehicles in California can significantly reduce air pollution and global warming emissions while creating job opportunities for underserved communities. It provides a life cycle emissions analysis comparing battery and fuel cell electric buses to diesel and CNG alternatives, finds that current EV technology meets many urban operational needs, and recommends targeted workforce training and financial incentives to ensure an equitable transition.

The report argues that political, ideological, and financial interests have undermined science in US federal decision making, harming public health and environmental protections. It defines scientific integrity as the practice where independent science, free from undue influence, informs policy transparently. To address persisting issues such as political interference and barriers to information flow, the document proposes a comprehensive blueprint for the next administration. Key recommendations include appointing a respected science advisor with direct access to the president, establishing a dedicated assistant director for scientific integrity within the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and requiring agencies to appoint scientific integrity officials who report publicly on violations. The report also calls for strengthening whistleblower protections, reforming the federal scientific advisory committee system to increase transparency, and ensuring that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) does not override agency scientific expertise. Additionally, it suggests enhancing public participation in rulemaking through better technology and strengthening environmental justice requirements by making scientific analysis of equity consequences mandatory for significant rules.

The report identifies a 'double jeopardy' for residents of east Houston's Harrisburg/Manchester and Galena Park communities, who face both daily chronic exposure to toxic air pollutants and a high risk of acute catastrophic chemical accidents. Using EPA data, the study finds that these marginalized communities have significantly higher toxic concentrations, cancer risks, and respiratory hazards than the more affluent West Oaks/Eldridge and Bellaire neighborhoods. The authors attribute these disparities to a lack of citywide zoning in Houston and the concentration of high-risk industrial facilities in low-income areas, recommending stricter regulations on safer chemicals, improved fenceline monitoring, and the implementation of formal health-impact assessments.

The report identifies a 'double jeopardy' for residents of Harrisburg/Manchester and Galena Park in east Houston, who face both higher daily exposure to toxic air pollutants and greater proximity to high-risk chemical facilities than residents of West Oaks/Eldridge and Bellaire in west Houston. This disparity results in significantly higher cancer and respiratory illness risks for east Houston residents, exacerbated by a lack of comprehensive zoning laws and socioeconomic determinants.

The report identifies a 'double jeopardy' for residents of Harrisburg/Manchester and Galena Park in east Houston, who face both significantly higher daily exposure to toxic air pollutants and a greater risk of catastrophic chemical accidents due to their proximity to high-risk industrial facilities. In contrast, wealthier communities in west Houston, such as Bellaire and West Oaks/Eldridge, have far lower exposure levels and fewer nearby hazardous facilities. The document advocates for systemic regulatory changes, including the adoption of safer technologies, improved emergency communication, and the implementation of health impact assessments to address these environmental justice disparities.

The document describes how nuclear weapons generate energy through fission (splitting heavy nuclei) and fusion (combining light nuclei). It details the transition from early 'gun-type' fission weapons to modern thermonuclear weapons that use a primary fission stage to trigger a secondary fusion stage. It also outlines the technical challenges of uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing, and provides estimated warhead counts for nuclear-armed states as of 2025.

The Union of Concerned Scientists evaluated several global beef buyers using a 100-point scorecard to measure their efforts to eliminate deforestation from their supply chains. The assessment focused on five categories: ambition of commitments, time-bound implementation plans, compliance protocols, transparency, and traceability/verification. Results varied significantly, with Walmart achieving the highest score of 52, followed by McDonald's at 48 and Mars at 37. Several companies, including Burger King, Pizza Hut, Kroger, and Conagra, received a total score of 0, indicating a lack of documented commitments or practices meeting the scorecard's criteria.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) developed a scoring system to evaluate 13 large companies across the retail, fast food, and manufacturing sectors that source beef from South America. The methodology uses a 100-point scale across five categories: ambition of deforestation-free commitment, time-bound implementation plans, compliance, transparency, and traceability, monitoring, and verification. Scoring is based on official company sources and Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) reports, with a specific emphasis on whether commitments cover all cattle products and are global in scope.