Search Climate Insights Directory

The World Resources Institute (WRI) endorses the IMF's Fiscal Monitor report, which identifies carbon pricing as the most efficient tool for climate mitigation. The WRI highlights the report's finding that carbon pricing could prevent 725,000 premature deaths from air pollution in G20 countries by 2030, while noting that the current global average carbon price of $2 per ton is insufficient to limit warming to 2°C.

The document examines the integration of ocean-based climate actions in the NDCs of island and coastal nations. An analysis of 106 new and updated NDCs reveals that 77 of them, or 73 percent, incorporate at least one target, policy, or measure focused on ocean-based climate actions.

The paper argues that ignoring gender and power inequalities in climate adaptation is maladaptive and recommends transforming social structures to ensure equitable resilience. It analyzes six key systems—natural environment, food security, sustainable cities, infrastructure, industry, and finance—demonstrating how patriarchal norms and intersecting inequalities (such as class, ethnicity, and age) disproportionately burden women and marginalized groups. The authors advocate for rigorous gender analyses, the redistribution of care work, and the inclusion of diverse voices in decision-making to move beyond tokenistic gender mainstreaming toward systemic, gender-transformative change.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) reported total assets of $169,995,735 and total net assets of $148,109,469 as of September 30, 2019. The organization's operating revenues for the 2019 fiscal year totaled $164,614,772, with the majority coming from grants, contributions, and contracts. While the auditors issued an unmodified opinion on the financial statements and compliance for major federal programs, they identified a significant deficiency regarding the timing of recognition for one conditional contribution of $5 million. WRI's programmatic work is organized around seven critical issues, including climate, energy, and forests, and is supported by subsidiaries in India, China, and Europe.

WRI President & CEO Andrew Steer states that while the UN Climate Action Summit saw commitments from 67 countries to enhance climate plans and 66 working toward carbon neutrality, major economies fell short of necessary ambition. Progress was instead driven by the private sector and subnational actors, including 87 businesses committing to 1.5 degree C targets and over 100 cities aiming for net-zero emissions by 2050.

The document argues that while NDCs (short-to-medium term commitments) and LTSs (mid-century visions) serve different legal and functional roles, they should be developed synergistically. Aligning them prevents the 'lock-in' of carbon-intensive infrastructure and reduces administrative costs by sharing data, modeling, and stakeholder consultations. The authors suggest that ideally, an LTS should inform the NDC, though they provide options for countries developing both in parallel or those updating NDCs without a formal LTS.

The World Resources Institute expresses opposition to the Trump Administration's revocation of California's tailpipe waiver, noting that tailpipe pollution is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and that the move affects California and 13 other states.

The briefing outlines three critical objectives for national leaders at the 2019 UN Climate Action Summit to align global efforts with the 1.5 degrees C warming limit. First, leaders are urged to pledge net-zero emissions by 2050, following examples like Suriname and Bhutan. Second, they must prepare to submit more ambitious nationally determined contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement in 2020. Third, the document calls for a shift from 'brown' to 'green' financing, specifically halting coal plant funding and increasing contributions to the Green Climate Fund to support developing nations. The text emphasizes that investing $1.8 trillion in climate resilience from 2020 to 2030 could yield $7.1 trillion in net benefits.

The document advocates for Integrated Landscape Management (ILM) as a critical mechanism to overcome the limitations of siloed sectoral approaches to climate change adaptation. It defines ILM as a process where diverse stakeholders collaborate to manage natural resources sustainably at a local scale, typically ranging from 100 to 10,000 km2. The authors identify five key features of effective ILM: multi-stakeholder institutions, structured cross-sector planning, synergistic interventions, aligned public policies, and coordinated investment portfolios. Using the Imarisha Naivasha initiative in Kenya as a case study, the paper demonstrates how ILM can resolve resource conflicts and build resilience. It concludes with recommendations for the Global Commission on Adaptation to foster ILM platforms, improve inter-agency planning, mobilize private sector investment, and build research systems for climate-resilient landscapes.

The document examines the challenges of measuring climate change adaptation, noting that most existing frameworks are designed for project-level monitoring rather than national or global assessment. It argues against a 'one-size-fits-all' metric, suggesting instead that metrics be tailored to specific purposes—such as identifying needs, tracking implementation, or assessing effectiveness. The paper highlights evolving practices in agriculture, urban planning (using the City of Melbourne as a case study), and multilateral development bank (MDB) financing, while recommending the integration of qualitative data, new technologies like earth observation, and alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to improve the comparability and transparency of adaptation tracking.

The document analyzes the vulnerability of global economic infrastructure to climate hazards such as flooding, extreme temperatures, and permafrost melt. It argues for a comprehensive approach to adaptation that integrates climate risk analysis 'upstream' into the planning, design, and financing stages of the infrastructure lifecycle. Key findings highlight significant risks to road networks, thermoelectric and hydropower plants, and water supplies, while proposing solutions ranging from nature-based 'Sponge Cities' to performance-based engineering standards and programmatic financing.

The paper argues that government-led adaptation is insufficient and that individuals and households must be actively involved to reduce climate risks. It identifies six categories of adaptive behavior—information seeking, preparative measures, protective measures, evacuation/migration, insurance, and political action—and analyzes the psychological drivers of these actions. Key motivators include risk perception, negative emotions, self-efficacy, outcome efficacy, social norms, and perceived responsibility. The authors conclude that while communication campaigns are common, they are often ineffective if they only provide information; instead, they should target psychological antecedents. Furthermore, the paper advocates for genuine public participation in decision-making to empower citizens and improve policy effectiveness, while noting that individual action must be supported by systemic, large-scale governmental infrastructure.

The document analyzes the financial system's failure to integrate physical climate risks into investment decision-making, which creates a growing adaptation financing gap. It identifies twelve key barriers—including inadequate public support, moral hazard, and low technical capacity—and proposes six systemic recommendations for the Global Commission on Adaptation (GCA). These include accelerating climate-relevant financial policies, developing robust risk management practices, and utilizing public institutions to catalyze private investment through blended finance and innovative instruments like resilience bonds.

The briefing outlines how electric vehicles can serve as flexible grid resources through controlled charging (V1G) and bidirectional energy flow (V2G) to improve grid efficiency and reliability. It identifies key barriers to adoption, including unclear utility roles in some states, regulatory structures that favor capacity building over grid optimization, and high start-up costs for fleet owners. The document proposes collaborative models where utilities provide infrastructure support and innovative rate designs, while customers provide data and real estate, to maximize carbon reductions and lower costs for ratepayers.

The document analyzes the vulnerability of MSMEs in low- and middle-income countries to physical and transition climate risks, highlighting how these risks are amplified through value chains. It identifies significant barriers to adaptation, including limited access to climate data, finance, and technical skills. The authors argue for a participatory, inclusive approach where MSMEs are not only resilient but also act as providers of adaptation goods and services, supported by state policies, large businesses, and financial institutions.

The document assesses the multifaceted threats climate change poses to global food security, highlighting that while some high-latitude regions may see productivity gains, the global South—especially sub-Saharan Africa—faces severe risks of yield losses and increased hunger. It argues for a systemic approach to adaptation, moving beyond autonomous adjustments to planned strategies. Key priorities include increasing public investment in agricultural research, adopting Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA), expanding irrigation, and improving the resilience of food value chains. The authors emphasize that adaptation must be balanced with greenhouse gas mitigation and social equity, particularly regarding gender and youth in agriculture.

The document argues that agroecology—combining science, practice, and social movements—provides a framework for transforming food systems to be more climate-resilient. It details how applying ecological principles (such as biodiversity and soil health) at various scales (field, farm, landscape, and food system) can mitigate climate risks. The paper provides evidence from Africa, India, and Europe, highlighting specific practices like agroforestry and Zero Budget Natural Farming. It concludes that scaling these approaches requires addressing market failures, reforming perverse policies, and shifting from a top-down technology transfer model to a co-creation of knowledge approach.

The paper examines how social protection instruments—specifically cash transfers and public works programs—can be leveraged to build climate resilience. It identifies a substantial overlap between social protection and climate adaptation, noting that both target the most vulnerable. The authors propose three strategic shifts: enhancing the effectiveness of existing systems, integrating climate risk management (such as forecast-based early action), and layering social protection with other risk management tools like insurance. The document highlights that while social protection strongly supports absorptive and adaptive resilience, more work is needed to achieve transformative resilience.

The document examines the intersection of climate change, security, and adaptation, arguing that climate impacts act as 'threat multipliers' that can destabilize states and international relations. It highlights risks such as transboundary water conflicts, food insecurity, Arctic geopolitical shifts, and mass migration. The authors warn against 'maladaptation'—adaptation efforts that inadvertently increase inequality or tension—and advocate for a 'preventive' approach. Key recommendations include creating multidimensional early warning systems, implementing risk-tolerant and 'nexus' financing for insecure regions, and ensuring adaptation strategies are timely, strategically targeted, and informed by political economy analysis to avoid exacerbating existing social and political frictions.

The paper examines the risks climate change poses to rural livelihoods in Asia, Africa, and Central America, noting that current adaptation efforts are insufficient. It advocates for a systemic transformation involving policy reform, digital agriculture, innovative finance, and the scaling of climate-resilient technologies. The authors propose five distinct pathways for adaptation—ranging from market integration and farming system shifts to exiting agriculture—tailored to different household types such as those 'stepping up', 'stepping out', 'hanging in', or those who are 'food insecure'.