Hubbry Logo
Climate Action NetworkClimate Action NetworkMain
Open search
Climate Action Network
Community hub
Climate Action Network
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Climate Action Network
Climate Action Network
Climate Action Network
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Climate Action Network - International (CAN) is a global network of over 1,300 environmental non-governmental organisations in over 130 countries working to promote government and individual action to limit human-induced climate change to ecologically sustainable levels.[1][2]

Key Information

Activities

[edit]

It participated in the meetings of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The group also published civil society's ECO newsletter presenting the views of civil society and communities around the world during the climate negotiations,[3] and the satirical Fossil of the Day Awards.[4] Adding to that, the group presented the countries who are blocking the progress at the climate negotiations in implementing the United Nations Climate Change Conference.[5]

This group's members work to achieve the coordination of information exchange and non-governmental organizational strategy on international, regional, and national climate issues. They work for a healthy environment and development that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (Brundtland Commission). With the vision to protect the atmosphere, the Climate Action Network opts for sustainable and equitable development worldwide. It was founded in 1989 by Michael Oppenheimer in West Germany, which quickly would reunify into Germany.[6]

Regional and national networks

[edit]
Tasneem Essop gives the Scottish First Minister a "Ray of the Day" award at COP26 - other countries were given Fossil of the Day.[4]
CAN Annual Strategy Session 2020 in Arusha, Tanzania

CAN has formal regional and national networks called nodes which coordinate these efforts.

Regional Nodes

[edit]
  • CAN-Arab World
  • CAN-Eastern Africa
  • CAN Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia (CAN-EECCA)
  • CAN-Europe
  • CAN Latin American (CANLA)
  • Pacific Islands CAN (PICAN)
  • CAN-South Asia (CANSA)
  • Southern African Region CAN (SARCAN)
  • CAN-South East Asia (CANSEA)
  • CAN West and Central Africa (CANWA)

National Network Nodes

[edit]
  • CAN-Australia (CANA)
  • CAN-Rac Canadian
  • CAN-China (informal)
  • Réseau Action Climat France [fr]
  • CAN-Japan
  • New Zealand Climate Action Network
  • CAN-South Africa (SACAN)
  • CAN-Tanzania
  • CAN-Uganda
  • US Climate Action Network (USCAN)

Climate Action Network Tanzania

[edit]

Climate Action Network Tanzania is an environmental non-governmental and non-profit organization founded in 2011, with its headquarters in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. It operates under the umbrella organisation Climate Action Network International. Since its inception, it has established partnerships with more than 50 civil society organizations across the country, as well as a number of government ministries and agencies including environment, local government, agriculture, livestock and fisheries, energy (department of renewable energy and policy), natural resources and tourism, water, work and finance especially the Planning Commission. It also works with the parliamentary standing committees and research institutions, in furtherance of implementing a Low Carbon Growth and the adaption to current climate change impacts

Objectives

[edit]
Climate Action Network Tanzania
TypeAdvocacy group
HeadquartersDar Es Salaam, Tanzania
Official language
English, Kiswahili
Sixbert Mwanga
Websitewww.cantz.or.tz

Together with its stakeholders, Climate Action Network Tanzania works towards climate sustainability and poverty reduction through enhanced community livelihood activities and a climate-resilient economy. Promoting renewable energy, reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation programmes and the sustainable use of water resources, it is fostering a low carbon development. Moreover, its goal is to develop a networking structure in order to inform and empower the Tanzanian community, providing a platform for public dialogues, with the purpose of giving Tanzania a national voice in the international climate change debate and raise awareness to enforce a climate-resilient behaviour. Climate Action Network Tanzania targets the implementation of effective national policies, strategies and actions concerning climate change impacts. Furthermore, their mission is bringing the international climate agenda into the local context of Tanzania to embrace Agenda 2030 and the Paris Agreement. In the interest of an accurate operation and socio-economic development Climate Action Network Tanzania undertakes scientific research on climate change and environment development in several areas throughout Tanzania.

Its areas of work are:

  • Water resources
  • Renewable energy  
  • Low carbon development
  • Climate finance
  • Poverty & livelihood
  • Capacity building  
  • Agenda 2030 & Paris agreement  
  • Adaption  
  • Food and agriculture

Projects  

[edit]

Climate Action Network Tanzania organizes workshops and seminars among stakeholders from government institutions and ministries, the private sector, development partners, and civil society. It does this by discussing the current and future climate change as well as the environmental-related effects on community well-being and economic growth. Its projects, include:

  • Aligning climate resilience, sustainable development and poverty reduction in Tanzania  
  • Participatory and inclusive planning and implementation: A capacity enhancement approach for community resilience and sustainable development in western Kilimanjaro-Lake Natron ecosystem[citation needed]

Finance  

[edit]

Climate Action Network Tanzania is a non-profit and non-governmental organization. It finances itself through sponsoring, donations, and financial backing from foundations. Its fundraising is based on its ethical fundraising strategy, which includes that it neither takes money from foundations whose ethics do not align with theirs nor accepts money bound to conditions that would modify their work or representation.[citation needed]

Member organizations

[edit]

CAN has over 1,300 members in over 130 countries across various regions.

  • USCAN (US Climate Action Network)

See also

[edit]

Notes and references

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Climate Action Network

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Climate Action Network International (CAN-I) is a global alliance of more than 1,900 organizations across over 130 countries, founded in to coordinate advocacy for aggressive reductions in and the phase-out of s. Operating through 22 regional and national nodes, CAN-I mobilizes members including and WWF to influence climate negotiations, such as those under the UNFCCC, where it pushes governments to align national plans with the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C warming limit and to integrate considerations into climate policy. The network's activities encompass mobilization, policy briefings, and public campaigns aimed at undermining interests and holding major emitters accountable, often through events at COP summits and protests that have led to member arrests for disrupting official proceedings. Funded largely by left-leaning foundations such as ClimateWorks, the , and contributions from affiliates like , CAN-I reported revenues exceeding $1.5 million in 2015, supporting its international secretariat and regional operations. While credited with amplifying voices in agreements like the Accord's labor and equity provisions, the has drawn criticism for promoting alarmist narratives on climate impacts that skeptics argue exaggerate risks beyond empirical observations of modest warming rates and adaptive human resilience. In 2016, CAN-I was targeted in a federal RICO lawsuit by Leonid Goldstein, who alleged that the network and allied groups engaged in through systematic dissemination of false claims about climate catastrophe to extract funding and policy concessions, though the case was ultimately dismissed on procedural grounds. These controversies underscore tensions between CAN-I's advocacy model, which prioritizes transformative decarbonization, and concerns over its alignment with cost-benefit analyses of climate policies that weigh economic disruptions against verifiable environmental threats.

History

Founding and Early Development (1989–1994)

The Climate Action Network (CAN) was established in 1989 by approximately 30-40 representatives from environmental non-governmental organizations primarily in and the , who gathered at a church retreat center in Loccum, , to form a coordinating body for climate advocacy efforts. This initiative emerged in the context of growing international attention to following the 1988 World Conference on the Changing Atmosphere in and the establishment of the (IPCC), aiming to facilitate joint NGO positions ahead of impending United Nations negotiations on a framework convention. Initial networks included Climate Network Europe as the first regional focal point, alongside the U.S. Climate Action Network (USCAN) and the Climate Action Network UK, with forming an unincorporated affiliate shortly thereafter. By 1992, regional coordination extended to with the establishment of CANSEA, involving members from , , and the . CAN's early operations focused on exchanging information on national climate policies, developing position papers, and advocating for greater NGO participation in global efforts to mitigate warming, without a formal international secretariat at the outset. Through 1993-1994, CAN grew to encompass several dozen organizations across seven regional networks, enabling coordinated interventions in the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) sessions that culminated in the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on (UNFCCC) at the Rio . These efforts emphasized pushing for binding commitments on reductions, though the network's influence remained limited by its nascent structure and reliance on voluntary coordination among ideologically aligned but independent NGOs.

Expansion Amid UN Climate Negotiations (1995–2014)

During the mid-1990s, as the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) transitioned into annual (COP) meetings, Climate Action Network (CAN) expanded its coordination of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to influence negotiation outcomes. At COP1 in in 1995, CAN's membership had grown to nearly 150 groups, enabling pre-COP strategy sessions such as "Goals for Berlin" to align advocacy on strengthening emission reduction commitments beyond the UNFCCC's initial framework. This period marked CAN's shift toward systematic engagement in international forums, with the network distributing its ECO newsletter—initially printed at COPs and later supplemented by versions—to disseminate technical analyses and policy critiques among delegates and observers. CAN played a pivotal role in advocating for the Kyoto Protocol adopted at COP3 in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997, coordinating over 200 NGOs to push for legally binding greenhouse gas reduction targets for developed countries, averaging 5.2% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. The network's efforts included formulating joint position papers emphasizing compliance mechanisms and rejecting voluntary approaches, viewing the Protocol as a foundational step despite criticisms from some quarters that its exemptions for developing countries undermined global efficacy. Post-adoption, CAN monitored ratification processes, launching campaigns against non-ratifying nations like the United States, while expanding its digital presence with a website in 1998 to broaden outreach. By the early 2000s, membership surpassed 300 organizations, reflecting recruitment from emerging regional networks in Asia, Africa, and Latin America amid rising global awareness of climate issues. In the 2000s, CAN's activities intensified around post-Kyoto commitments, including support for the Bali Action Plan at COP13 in 2007, where it lobbied for comparable efforts from major developing economies while critiquing insufficient ambition from Annex I countries. The network introduced its "Fossil of the Day" awards in 1999 at intersessional talks, a satirical mechanism—continued annually at COPs—to highlight countries perceived as obstructing progress, such as those resisting stringent targets or phase-outs, with awards voted daily by member NGOs. At COP15 in in 2009, CAN coordinated over 1,000 NGO participants, producing guides for engagement, hosting press conferences assessing negotiation drafts, and issuing ECO editions that condemned the resulting as inadequate for lacking binding enforcement. This era saw CAN's membership expand to over 600 organizations by the mid-2000s, reaching more than 900 across 100 countries by 2014, driven by the proliferation of national and regional nodes that localized advocacy amid protracted talks on adaptation finance and technology transfer.

Post-Paris Agreement Era and Recent Milestones (2015–Present)

Following the adoption of the on December 12, 2015, Climate Action Network (CAN) evaluated the outcome as a framework for accelerating the shift from fossil fuels to renewables, while critiquing gaps in ambition for limiting global warming to 1.5°C. CAN emphasized integrating into implementation to enhance policy effectiveness and public support. The network shifted focus to , urging governments to strengthen nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and provide finance for adaptation in vulnerable nations. In 2019, CAN underwent a leadership transition with the appointment of as , who had prior roles including global climate policy director at WWF International and founding director of a South African energy democracy initiative. Under Essop, CAN intensified campaigns for transformative national plans, targeting major emitters to phase out fossil fuels and prioritize equity. By this period, the network had expanded to over 1,900 organizations across more than 130 countries. CAN played a prominent role in subsequent UN climate conferences, advocating for the establishment of a loss and damage fund at COP27 in 2022, which operationalized provisions from the Paris Agreement's Article 8. At COP26 in 2021, Essop delivered key interventions highlighting solidarity and fairness in global responses. Continuing this, CAN criticized insufficient commitments at COP28 in 2023 and COP29 in 2024, demanding trillions in annual support for developing countries while pushing for annual reviews of climate goals. In 2025 intersessional talks, CAN secured advances in loss and damage finance discussions amid ongoing tensions over developed nations' contributions. These efforts aligned with CAN's vision for 1.5°C compatibility by 2030, emphasizing just transitions and protection for affected communities.

Organizational Structure

International Secretariat and Governance

The International Secretariat of Climate Action Network (CAN-I), established as the coordinating hub for the global network, operates under the legal entity CAN International Association e.V. It facilitates among over 1,900 member organizations across more than 130 countries, supporting , development, and operational activities while maintaining legal and financial independence from regional nodes and individual members. Led by Executive Director Tasneem Essop since 2019, the secretariat staff—numbering around 15 as of 2014 and distributed across multiple countries—handles day-to-day coordination, including positioning, network communications, and administrative support for international negotiations. Essop, previously a expert, oversees senior roles such as Director of (Jana Merkelbach) and Head of Political Strategies (Jacobo Ocharan), ensuring alignment with network objectives. Governance is directed by a , consisting of 13 elected members representing diverse regions, genders, and interests, selected at the annual to reflect the network's global composition rather than specific organizations. The Board, which includes figures like Co-Chairs Larissa Baldwin and Gia Ibay, as well as representatives from groups such as (Susan Sinnett) and USCAN (Colette Pichon Battle), oversees strategic direction, financial management, risk assessment, and network growth through committees like Finance & Audit and Human Resources. The functions as the supreme decision-making authority, prioritizing consensus-based processes informed by member consultations, with the secretariat aiding implementation and dispute resolution per the CAN Charter. Accountability mechanisms, including adherence to a , allow for member or node sanctions in cases of breaches, enforced by the Board.

Regional and National Networks

The (CAN) is organized into 22 regional and national nodes, each responsible for coordinating , membership, and within its geographic scope while contributing to global strategies through bottom-up input. These nodes enable localized responses to climate policy, ensuring that international efforts reflect diverse regional priorities and capacities. Autonomy in node operations allows for tailored approaches to national contexts, such as engaging domestic governments or mobilizing grassroots organizations, while fostering joint work on shared challenges like in vulnerable areas. Regional nodes serve as coordination hubs for multiple countries, facilitating cross-border campaigns and information exchange on issues like UNFCCC negotiations or regional . Examples include the CAN-Arab World network, which addresses climate impacts in the ; CAN-Eastern Africa, focusing on resilience and transitions; and CAN Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia (CAN-EECCA), which supports in aligning with goals. Other regional structures cover (CAN-Europe), (CANLA), , , and the Pacific, often prioritizing equity in and demands specific to their areas. National nodes operate within single countries or as coalitions, aggregating member NGOs for targeted domestic advocacy, such as influencing national climate plans or litigation against polluters. Notable examples are , coordinating over a dozen Australian NGOs on bushfire response and export policies; , uniting more than 190 U.S.-based organizations to push for federal legislation like the ; Réseau Action Climat (RAC-France), advocating for EU-aligned reductions in French emissions; CAN-Japan, engaging on nuclear phase-out alternatives; and Climate Action Network (SACAN), focusing on just transitions in coal-dependent economies. These nodes handle membership applications—requiring alignment with CAN's charter—and ensure that over 1,900 total member organizations across 130+ countries remain connected via the network's internal platforms.

Membership Composition

The Climate Action Network (CAN) consists of over 1,800 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) dedicated to , adaptation, and , spanning more than 130 countries across all six continents. Membership eligibility is restricted to non-profit entities actively involved in climate-related work, with explicit exclusion of industry or corporate representatives to maintain from vested interests. Organizations join through regional or national nodes, of which there are 22, enabling localized coordination within the global framework. The membership is predominantly composed of environmental advocacy groups, such as Greenpeace International and the (WWF), which focus on policy influence and public mobilization. Development-oriented NGOs, including and , form a significant portion, emphasizing equity, alleviation, and in vulnerable regions. Community-based and organizations, often addressing local impacts like disaster resilience, are also prevalent, alongside smaller numbers of faith-based groups such as . This mix underscores CAN's orientation, prioritizing non-state actors over governmental or private sector involvement. Geographically, membership skews toward and , reflecting historical advocacy strengths in those areas, but includes substantial representation from , , and the Pacific. As documented in the December 2021 membership roster of 1,527 organizations—likely an undercount relative to current totals—the accounted for 561 members, followed by (123), (107), (121), and the (62). African nodes, such as those in (52 members across countries like and ) and , highlight engagement in developing contexts, though overall numbers remain lower than in Western hubs. This distribution supports CAN's strategy of bridging Global North funding and expertise with Global South priorities, though it has drawn critiques for uneven influence favoring established Western NGOs.

Mission, Objectives, and Ideological Framework

Stated Goals and Policy Positions

The Climate Action Network (CAN) states its primary objectives as preventing dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system through global awareness-raising and capacity-building efforts targeted at governments and citizens, while also safeguarding , advancing , , and . Its vision encompasses a world insulated from the adverse , wherein populations coexist harmoniously with natural ecosystems, upholding universal , equity across nations, and pathways to sustainable . CAN positions itself as an advocate for holding governments accountable to the Paris Agreement's commitment to limit global warming to well below 2°C, with efforts prioritized toward the 1.5°C threshold, emphasizing the integration of with broader development imperatives. In terms of policy advocacy, CAN demands a rapid, comprehensive, and publicly funded phase-out of fossil fuels, rejecting offsets or mechanisms under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement that could undermine stringent mitigation. It calls for nationally determined contributions (NDCs) from all countries to align with a 1.5°C trajectory, incorporating just transition principles that prioritize workers in fossil-dependent sectors through retraining and social protections funded by polluter pays mechanisms. CAN advocates for substantial increases in public climate finance from developed nations to developing ones, targeting needs-based allocations exceeding $100 billion annually by 2025 under the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), delivered predominantly as grants rather than loans to avoid exacerbating debt burdens. Further positions include the operationalization of a loss and damage finance facility, with initial contributions from historical emitters like those in the , to compensate vulnerable nations for irreversible climate impacts such as events. CAN supports enhanced funding focused on resilience-building in , , and for least-developed countries, while opposing trade measures or carbon border adjustments that could impose unilateral burdens on global south economies without reciprocal commitments from high emitters. These stances are articulated through CAN's annual COP policy documents and ECO newsletters, which critique insufficient ambition in negotiations and urge binding timelines for emissions reductions peaking before 2020 and reaching net-zero by 2050 at the latest.

Alignment with Broader Environmental Narratives

The (CAN) aligns closely with dominant environmental narratives that frame as an demanding immediate, transformative global action to limit warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, as articulated in the . CAN explicitly holds governments accountable to this threshold, emphasizing the need for ambitious nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and criticizing insufficient progress in multilateral forums like the UNFCCC. This stance mirrors broader narratives from IPCC reports, which CAN frequently endorses; for instance, in response to the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report Synthesis in 2023, CAN highlighted the "stark detail" of the crisis and called for an end to the era to avert irreversible tipping points. Such positions prioritize urgency and systemic overhaul over incremental adaptations, reflecting a consensus among international environmental NGOs that current emission trajectories risk catastrophic outcomes, though empirical projections from IPCC authors indicate only 4% likelihood of achieving 1.5°C by century's end under existing policies. CAN's advocacy extends to narratives of climate justice and equity, centering voices from Global South communities disproportionately affected by emissions originating in industrialized nations. It promotes a "just transition" to renewables, rejecting carbon offsetting as inadequate for addressing root causes and advocating for the phase-out of fossil fuels to strip their economic and social license. This aligns with radical strains within that critique capitalist structures for perpetuating fossil dependence, as seen in CAN's focus on ending industry influence and fostering grassroots-led resilience. While CAN operates within UN frameworks, its papers and campaigns often amplify calls for binding commitments on and loss/damage, echoing broader activist demands for reparative measures from high-emitting countries, though these remain contentious amid debates over economic feasibility and verifiable mitigation impacts. In critiquing mainstream implementations, CAN diverges slightly from technocratic optimism in some environmental circles by opposing geoengineering solutions like marine interventions and prioritizing people-centered, multilateral advocacy over market-based mechanisms alone. This positioning reinforces narratives of collective responsibility and anti-corporate accountability, consistent with NGO coalitions that view insufficient regulatory ambition as a of political will rather than technological limits. Empirical alignment with IPCC is evident in CAN's endorsement of land-based and protections, yet its rejection of offsets underscores a purist stance prioritizing absolute emission reductions, which contrasts with pragmatic approaches in policy circles balancing growth and decarbonization. Overall, CAN embodies the activist core of environmental narratives, advocating for profound societal shifts grounded in observed climate risks but amplified through advocacy lenses that prioritize equity and urgency over unverified economic trade-offs.

Activities and Operations

Advocacy in International Forums

The (CAN) engages in international climate forums primarily through its role as an accredited civil society observer to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations. As co-lead of the Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations () constituency, CAN coordinates over 1,900 member organizations to monitor, analyze, and influence the proceedings of (COP) meetings, which occur annually. This involvement dates back to the network's founding in 1989, predating the UNFCCC's establishment, with consistent participation shaping civil society input since the first COP in 1995. CAN's advocacy tactics include producing the daily ECO newsletter during COP sessions and intersessional meetings, a publication initiated in the early that provides summaries, critiques, and calls for stronger commitments from parties. For instance, at COP29 in in November 2024, ECO issues highlighted gaps in national contributions toward the 1.5°C target and urged finance mobilization. The network also organizes side events, briefings, and coalitions to lobby delegates, emphasizing equity, , and ambitious targets like and loss-and-damage funding. Public pressure mechanisms form a core of CAN's strategy, such as the "Fossil of the Day" awards, which since 1999 have singled out governments for actions undermining progress, with the receiving the escalated "Colossal Fossil" at multiple COPs for blocking agreements. Complementing this, CAN presents "Ray of the Day" awards for constructive steps, as seen at COP26 in in 2021 when executive director Tasneem Essop highlighted positive ministerial interventions. These efforts extend to intersessional meetings, where in June 2025 at SB62, CAN criticized tactics and advocated for unrestricted civic space amid reports of on non-climate issues. Beyond UNFCCC, CAN targets forums like the , , IPCC sessions, and board meetings to align advocacy across multilateral processes, focusing on holding major emitters—responsible for over 80% of global emissions—accountable for scaled-up action. In preparation for COP30 in Belém in 2025, CAN issued calls for equitable mineral value chains, integrating and environmental safeguards into transition policies. These activities leverage CAN's global reach to amplify voices from developing regions, though outcomes depend on party negotiations, with CAN often attributing delays to resistance from high-emitting nations.

Campaigns, Publications, and Coalitions

CAN coordinates campaigns centered on advancing ambitious climate policies in international negotiations and national implementations. A key focus includes transformative national plans, launched as a strategy to sustain pressure on major emitters and wealthy nations for emissions trajectories consistent with the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C limit, emphasizing just transitions and finance for vulnerable countries. During the COP27 summit in Sharm El-Sheikh from November 6 to 20, 2022, CAN organized member-led actions to advocate for operationalizing loss and damage funding and strengthening pledges, including street protests and interventions highlighting gaps in prior commitments. Another initiative targets nations, urging them to integrate comprehensive climate plans covering , , and support for Global South priorities, with calls for alignment on reduction timelines. The network issues position papers, briefings, and reports to inform advocacy and critique policy shortcomings. In response to ongoing energy debates, CAN published a position in 2023 demanding a "fair, fast, full, and funded" global , contending that delayed action exacerbates inequities and undermines net-zero goals without adequate support for affected workers and communities. Its 2019 stance on rejected expansive subsidies and targets, citing evidence of indirect emissions from and competition with food production, while advocating strict criteria to prevent greenwashing. CAN also released a 2019 briefing on the IPCC's Special Report on and Land, analyzing pathways for land-based mitigation like reduced and soil carbon enhancement, projected to contribute up to 30% of needed emissions cuts by 2030 if scaled equitably. Annual reports, such as the 2021 edition, document network activities, including strategy shifts post-2019 global meetings toward enhanced grassroots coordination. Coalitions form the backbone of CAN's operations, comprising over 1,900 member NGOs across 130 countries organized into 22 regional and national nodes for localized yet synchronized . Thematic working groups, restricted to members and aligned with UNFCCC tracks like and , facilitate collaborative drafting of positions and joint interventions, such as those on Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Notable partners include the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives for waste-climate linkages and the Global Catholic Climate Movement for faith-informed mobilization, enabling cross-sector campaigns that amplify demands in UN forums. This federated model supports bottom-up coalitions, as seen in coordinated pushes during COPs, where regional inputs shape global strategies without centralized vetoes.

Domestic and Regional Initiatives

The Climate Action Network (CAN) coordinates domestic and regional initiatives primarily through its 22 regional and national nodes, which conduct joint advocacy to influence local policies and ensure alignment with global climate goals such as the Paris Agreement. These nodes focus on bottom-up strategies, strengthening civil society engagement to pressure governments for ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and equitable domestic implementation. For instance, CAN's Transformative National Climate Action Plans program evaluates country-specific NDCs, critiquing shortcomings like fossil fuel dependency in Canada's targets and Australia's production policies, while praising incremental adaptation efforts in Kenya. In , CAN Europe, representing over 180 organizations, drives regional campaigns including "Europe Beyond ," which advocates for phasing out coal-fired power in member states and supports national transitions to renewables. Another initiative, "Together for 100% Renewable ," mobilizes network members to accelerate solar and deployment, emphasizing fair rollout policies at both and national levels. Similarly, in other regions, CAN nodes facilitate input into domestic planning; examples include advocacy for stronger NDCs in , , the , and the Kyrgyz Republic, where local NGOs highlight gaps in equity and finance. National nodes, such as those in and , engage in targeted domestic advocacy, including critiques of offsets and nuclear reliance in Japan's NDC and expansion in the UAE's plans. (CANLA) supports regional coordination on legal and for climate policies, though specific campaign details emphasize broader over standalone initiatives. Across nodes in , , and the , activities prioritize holding emitters accountable through mobilization and policy guidelines released in multiple languages to aid national-level revisions ahead of 2025 NDC updates.

Funding and Financial Operations

Primary Funding Sources

The Climate Action Network International (CAN-I) primarily derives its funding from grants awarded by philanthropic foundations dedicated to environmental causes, as well as contributions from international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and member networks. Key funders documented in CAN-I's financial disclosures include the European Climate Foundation, ClimateWorks Foundation, Greenpeace International, and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), alongside others such as , , and Misereor. These sources support CAN-I's operational budget, which in 2015 totaled approximately $1.57 million in revenue, with expenses of $1.53 million, largely allocated to advocacy and coordination activities. While CAN-I solicits individual and recurring donations through its website to bolster global operations, such contributions appear secondary to institutional grants, which dominate reported inflows. Annual reports, such as those from and 2021, confirm reliance on these foundation and NGO partnerships, though detailed breakdowns of recent donor allocations remain limited in public access, reflecting a pattern of selective financial transparency common among advocacy networks. No evidence indicates direct government funding as a , distinguishing CAN-I from state-supported initiatives. This funding model aligns CAN-I with broader climate philanthropy ecosystems, where intermediaries like the European Climate Foundation channel resources from high-net-worth donors and endowments toward international advocacy. Critics have noted potential implications for , given the ideological alignment of these funders with aggressive emissions reduction agendas, but CAN-I maintains that such support enables its coordination of over 1,900 member organizations across 130 countries.

Budget Allocation and Transparency Issues

Climate Action Network-International (CAN-I) reported total expenditures of €2,223,514 in its 2021 financial summary, with the largest allocation to personnel costs at 57% (€1,270,566), reflecting heavy in staffing for coordination across its of over 1,900 member organizations. Sub-grants to regional nodes accounted for 33% (€734,847), supporting activities in affiliates via the Node Development Fund, which distributed €293,893 that year—a 47% increase from 2020. Remaining funds went to coordination and administration (5%), publications (5%), travel (1%), and events (1%), indicating a focus on and outputs rather than direct on-the-ground projects. Funding for these expenditures derives primarily from institutional grants by philanthropic foundations, including the Children's Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF), ClimateWorks Foundation, Oak Foundation, KR Foundation, IKEA Foundation, and others such as AirClim, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES), and , alongside minor individual donations. This donor composition, dominated by entities aligned with progressive environmental agendas, raises questions about potential influence on CAN-I's policy priorities, though the organization lists these sources in its reports without detailing grant-specific restrictions. Historical data from 2010 shows a similar pattern, with expenditures of $1,144,920 USD, where salaries and benefits comprised 26% ($301,037) and travel-related costs exceeded 52% ($597,242 combined), underscoring consistent emphasis on operational and convening expenses over program delivery. CAN-I maintains transparency through annual reports that include financial breakdowns and audited statements, as evidenced in publications up to , but lacks publicly available detailed financials for 2022–2024 on its , potentially limiting scrutiny of recent trends amid growing network scale. Sub-grant allocations to nodes, while substantial, are not itemized by recipient or project outcome, which could obscure end-use efficacy given varying standards among affiliates in over 130 countries. Broader critiques of environmental NGOs, including opaque donor influences and high administrative overheads, apply indirectly to CAN-I's model, where personnel and coordination dominate budgets, though no specific allegations of mismanagement have surfaced in independent analyses.

Policy Influence and Impact

Contributions to Global Agreements

The Climate Action Network (CAN), established in 1989 to coordinate non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in climate negotiations, played a pivotal role in advocating for the during the late 1990s UNFCCC processes. CAN facilitated the coordination of environmental NGOs (ENGOs) under its umbrella, enabling unified strategies that emphasized binding emissions reduction targets for industrialized countries, as outlined in the protocol adopted on December 11, 1997, and entering into force on February 16, 2005. Through initiatives like the launch of the ECO newsletter—providing daily policy recommendations to negotiators—and the Fossil of the Day awards starting in 1999 to publicly criticize countries delaying progress, CAN amplified pressure on parties to achieve the protocol's differentiated responsibilities framework. In the lead-up to the 2015 Paris Agreement, CAN mobilized over 1,900 member organizations across 130 countries to push for ambitious elements, including the 1.5°C temperature goal, integration of into , and enhanced financial commitments from developed nations under Article 9. Their advocacy contributed to the agreement's emphasis on nationally determined contributions (NDCs) with progressive ambition, as CAN produced position papers urging alignment with and equity principles during COP21 negotiations. Post-adoption, CAN has sustained influence by monitoring NDC submissions—reporting in February 2025 that over 90% of countries missed the January 2025 deadline for updates—and critiquing implementation gaps at subsequent COPs to enforce accountability. CAN's broader contributions to UNFCCC agreements include fostering coalitions for mechanisms, such as proposals for the Belem Action Mechanism at COP30, and opposing loopholes like surplus Assigned Amount Units carryover from eras that could undermine mitigation stringency. These efforts, while rooted in advocacy rather than formal decision-making, have shaped negotiation dynamics by bridging NGO inputs with party positions, though their impact is debated given persistent gaps in global emissions trajectories relative to pledged targets.

Measurable Outcomes and Effectiveness Critiques

Global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have risen by approximately 51% from 1990 to 2021, reaching 57.4 GtCO₂-eq in 2022, despite the Climate Action Network's (CAN) sustained advocacy for rapid decarbonization and international agreements like the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement. This increase, driven primarily by economic growth in Asia (accounting for 77% of the net rise since 1990), underscores a lack of global peak in emissions following CAN's push for binding targets and fossil fuel phase-outs since its founding in 1989. CAN's influence on policy rhetoric, such as the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C goal, has yielded non-binding nationally determined contributions (NDCs), yet current implementations project 2.5–2.9°C warming by 2100, with atmospheric CO₂ concentrations continuing to climb. Critics argue this reflects limited effectiveness, as CAN-backed strategies fail to account for causal drivers like poverty alleviation and industrialization in developing economies, where emissions from and have surged to meet energy demands unmet by intermittent renewables. Effectiveness critiques further emphasize suboptimal resource allocation; for instance, the trillions spent on subsidies and mandates aligned with CAN's positions have not proportionally curbed global trends, with emissions decoupling minimally from GDP growth only in select nations. Analysts like highlight that such advocacy prioritizes high-cost mitigation over innovation in R&D, yielding marginal temperature benefits (e.g., 0.1–0.3°C averted by 2100 under aggressive scenarios) at the expense of broader development priorities like and . Empirical assessments of similar NGO-orchestrated initiatives show variable outputs but no systemic improvement in emission trajectories tied to network scale or ambition. These outcomes suggest CAN's model excels in mobilization but struggles with enforceable, economically viable pathways that transcend voluntary pledges.

Economic and Societal Consequences of Advocated Policies

The policies advocated by the Climate Action Network (CAN), including a rapid and full phase-out of fuels, a swift transition to systems, and stringent emissions reductions aligned with a 1.5°C warming limit, have been associated with substantial economic disruptions in empirical analyses of similar decarbonization pathways. Studies modeling aggressive decarbonization scenarios indicate potential annual global GDP reductions of 0.15 to 0.25 percentage points due to shifts in energy demand, capital reallocation, and higher transitional costs, with fuel-producing economies facing disproportionate losses of up to 60% in rents under ambitious policies. In , for instance, replacing with renewables under rapid timelines has been estimated to impose annual costs of up to $37.7 billion, reflecting elevated infrastructure and reliability expenses during the shift. Sectoral employment impacts from such policies reveal net job creation in renewables but significant losses and penalties in carbon-intensive industries, with laid-off workers in sectors experiencing hourly reductions of 24% and unemployment rates of 26% post-displacement, based on U.S. from decarbonization-driven layoffs. German administrative on mass layoffs in carbon-intensive sectors similarly document long-term earnings losses and reemployment challenges, underscoring the costs of abrupt transitions without adequate retraining. While aggregate welfare effects may remain limited in integrated models, value-added shifts from to low-carbon power generation amplify vulnerabilities in energy-exporting regions, potentially exacerbating fiscal strains. Societally, CAN's push for accelerated risks heightening , particularly in where green transition policies have contributed to elevated household energy expenditures amid volatile renewable integration. Between 8% and 16% of the EU —equating to 35 to 72 million people—faced in recent years, driven by high energy costs, low incomes, and inefficient building stocks, with the 2022 amplifying these effects through policy-induced price spikes. Lower-income households bear the largest relative burdens from rising energy prices under decarbonization, as evidenced by distributional analyses showing regressive impacts absent targeted subsidies. In fossil-dependent developing economies, rapid phase-outs without funded transitions could trigger "traumatic decarbonization," sparking political crises, social unrest, and inequality exacerbation due to sudden revenue and job collapses. Empirical evidence from countries highlights persistent labor market mismatches in high-polluting sectors, where displaced workers face prolonged unemployment and skill gaps, disproportionately affecting vulnerable communities.

Controversies and Criticisms

Allegations of Exaggerated Climate Alarmism

Critics have accused the Climate Action Network (CAN) of promoting exaggerated claims about the severity of to advance policy agendas and secure funding. In 2016, mathematician and climate skeptic Leonid Goldstein filed a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) against CAN and over 40 other environmental organizations, foundations, and investment funds, alleging they formed a "Climate Alarmism Enterprise" engaged in a long-term criminal scheme since 1988. The complaint claimed CAN and affiliates falsely asserted that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming, while suppressing evidence that CO2 increases and that observed warming is minor and net beneficial. Goldstein alleged predicate acts including , of public officials, and attempted , such as demands for trillions in climate reparations based on these purported falsehoods, seeking damages for from retaliation against skeptics. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of , was dismissed in 2017 for failure to state valid RICO claims. CAN has been criticized for organizing publicity stunts that amplify alarmist narratives during UN climate negotiations. At the 2015 COP21 in , CAN collaborated with groups like to distribute over 1,000 "Wanted" posters and fliers targeting climate skeptics such as and , branding them " criminals" with alleged fossil fuel connections and urging their prosecution. CAN also advocated ejecting skeptics from the talks, framing dissent as obstruction to urgent action, though these efforts failed. Observers, including , described such tactics as stunts designed to vilify opponents rather than engage scientifically. Broader critiques portray CAN as a coordinator of synchronized alarmist messaging among NGOs, allegedly prioritizing advocacy over empirical scrutiny. The Heartland Institute has highlighted CAN's role in funding global activism that portrays climate impacts as apocalyptic to justify stringent emissions cuts and wealth transfers, despite data showing slower-than-predicted warming rates and adaptive benefits from CO2 fertilization. CAN's U.S. affiliate received over $13 million from foundations like the Sea Change Foundation between 2006 and 2014, which critics link to sustaining these campaigns. Detractors argue such efforts erode public trust when predictions of imminent catastrophe, like widespread crop failures or mass extinctions tied directly to CO2, fail to materialize as forecasted. CAN maintains its positions align with from bodies like the IPCC, dismissing accusations as denialism funded by industry interests.

Questions on Political Neutrality and Bias

Critics have questioned the political neutrality of the Climate Action Network (CAN), arguing that its advocacy prioritizes progressive policy demands over impartial analysis, despite its framing as a collaborative NGO network focused on climate solutions. CAN's positions, such as calls for rapid fossil fuel phase-outs and integration of labor and equity provisions into international agreements like the , align closely with left-leaning priorities, including opposition to nuclear energy despite its role as a low-emissions baseload power source. This stance has drawn accusations of ideological bias, as evidenced by internal feuds with more moderate environmentalists over issues like wind energy opposition and aggressive tactics, including protests against and symbolic actions like dumping coal on the U.S. Capitol lawn. Funding sources further fuel concerns about partisan alignment. CAN-International received support from donors including , , ClimateWorks Foundation, and the , organizations known for advancing left-progressive environmental agendas; in 2015, its revenue totaled $1,571,917, with expenses of $1,533,617, partly from these and anonymous contributors. Similarly, its U.S. affiliate (USCAN) drew grants from entities like Sea Change International ($1,125,000 in 2016) and the ($46,106), which fund advocacy aligned with regulatory and equity-focused climate policies. Such financing, lacking diverse ideological input, raises questions about whether CAN's outputs reflect balanced empirical assessment or donor-driven narratives, particularly given the progressive bent of these funders' broader portfolios. CAN's affiliations and activities amplify perceptions of non-neutrality. Partnerships with labor unions like the and groups such as the Center for Social Inclusion emphasize framing of climate policy, often critiquing market-oriented or conservative approaches while supporting multilateral frameworks with redistributive elements. Its regional networks, including CAN-Europe and USCAN, engage in targeted campaigns, such as "wanted posters" against skeptics and smears of climate policy opponents, which mirror partisan tactics rather than neutral facilitation. Evaluations of affiliates, like USCAN's left-center bias rating due to selective advocacy for stringent action, suggest a pattern where CAN amplifies progressive critiques of insufficiently ambitious governments (e.g., awarding " of the Day" to conservative-led nations) while offering measured praise for left-aligned initiatives, such as Canada's 2022 Liberal-NDP climate supply-and-confidence agreement. These elements prompt scrutiny of CAN's claim to apolitical coordination, as its emphasis on "systems transformation" and equity often intersects with ideological battles, potentially sidelining first-principles evaluations of trade-offs like reliability or economic impacts. While CAN maintains it bases demands on peer-reviewed , critics contend this selectively interprets to favor alarmist or redistributive outcomes, echoing broader institutional biases in environmental where left-leaning perspectives dominate and . No formal legal findings of partisanship exist, but the network's operational choices underscore ongoing debates about whether climate NGOs like CAN function as neutral brokers or ideological actors. In September 2016, Climate Action Network was sued under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by plaintiff Leonid Goldstein, who alleged that the organization, along with 39 other environmental groups and individuals, participated in a fraudulent enterprise by disseminating false claims of an imminent climate catastrophe to induce governments and donors to provide funding. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, claimed this constituted a pattern of racketeering activity aimed at financial gain through exaggerated threats unsupported by empirical evidence. Defendants, including CAN, filed motions to dismiss, which were granted, leading to the case's termination on June 12, 2017. The allegations in the Goldstein suit highlighted ethical concerns over the integrity of advocacy claims, positing that overstating climate risks could mislead policymakers and the public, potentially diverting resources from evidence-based priorities. Although the dismissed the claims without reaching the merits—typically on grounds such as lack of standing or failure to state a viable RICO predicate—the case underscored broader debates on the of NGOs to substantiate alarmist narratives with verifiable data rather than relying on consensus-driven assertions prone to institutional biases. Critics have also questioned CAN's funding transparency, particularly for its U.S. chapter (USCAN), noting opaque sourcing that complicates assessments of potential influences on its positions. Charity evaluations, such as a 3/4-star rating from , reflect operational strengths but do not fully resolve accountability gaps in donor disclosures, raising ethical issues about undue reliance on untraceable contributions in climate campaigning. These concerns align with wider scrutiny of environmental NGOs, where undisclosed has historically enabled agenda-driven over rigorous of impacts.

References

  1. https://climatenetwork.org/
  2. https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/climate-action-network-international/
  3. https://www.macfound.org/grantee/us-climate-action-network-10104496/
  4. https://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/10/17/sceptic-files-texas-lawsuit-against-climate-alarmism/
  5. https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txndce/5:2016cv00211/279138
  6. https://www.folkrorelser.org/bjork-history-climate-movement.pdf
  7. https://www.anzam.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf-manager/1355_MCGREGOR_IAN-274.PDF
  8. https://climatenetwork.org/overview/
  9. https://climatenetwork.org/2015/04/08/in-the-time-machine-a-short-history-of-can-south-east-asia/
  10. https://www.usclimatenetwork.org/our-history
  11. https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1441&context=celj
  12. https://climatenetwork.org/resource/why-the-kyoto-protocol-is-a-historic-milestone/
  13. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1607&context=sdlp
  14. https://climatenetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/can_2014_annual_report_final_spread_web.pdf
  15. https://climatenetwork.org/resource_type/fossil-of-the-day/
  16. https://climatenetwork.org/resource/can-cop15-guide/
  17. https://climatenetwork.org/resource/copenhagen-climate-negotiation-news-update-today-cop15-day-09/
  18. https://climatenetwork.org/2015/12/12/civil-society-responds-as-final-paris-climate-agreement-released/
  19. https://climatenetwork.org/resource/can-position-integrating-human-rights-into-the-paris-agreement-october-2015/
  20. https://climatenetwork.org/our-work/transformative-national-climate-action-plans/
  21. https://earth.org/climate-justice-and-loss-and-damage/
  22. https://climatenetwork.org/person/tasneem-essop/
  23. https://climatenetwork.org/2024/11/21/ncqg-cop29-text/
  24. https://climatenetwork.org/2025/06/26/breakthrough-for-justice-at-bonn-climate-talks/
  25. https://climatenetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/CAN-Charter-as-adopted-at-AGM-March-2021.pdf
  26. https://climatenetwork.org/overview/governance/people/
  27. https://climatenetwork.org/overview/governance/
  28. https://climatenetwork.org/overview/members/
  29. https://climatenetwork.org/our-work/can-working-groups/
  30. https://climatenetwork.org/region/south-east-asia/
  31. https://www.usclimatenetwork.org/members
  32. https://climatenetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Membership-List-Website-Version.pdf
  33. https://climatenetwork.org/resource_type/can-positions/
  34. https://climatenetwork.org/resource/eco-1-cop29/
  35. https://climatenetwork.org/resource/cop26-five-point-plan-for-solidarity-fairness-and-prosperity/
  36. https://climatenetwork.org/resource/cop29-annual-policy-document-achieving-fair-climate-finance-to-deliver-resilience-ambition-and-a-just-transition/
  37. https://climatenetwork.org/our-work/multilateral-processes-and-advocacy/
  38. https://climatenetwork.org/2023/03/20/ipcc-synthesis-report-civil-society-reacts/
  39. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44168-024-00118-0
  40. https://climatenetwork.org/resource/position-on-carbon-offsetting/
  41. https://climatenetwork.org/our-work/ending-fossil-fuels
  42. https://climatenetwork.org/resource/overview-briefing-on-the-ipcc-special-report-on-climate-change-and-land/
  43. https://climatenetwork.org/resource/overview-briefing-on-the-ipcc-special-report-on-the-ocean-and-cryosphere/
  44. https://climatenetwork.org/resource/eco-newsletter/
  45. https://climatenetwork.org/cop-27/eco-newsletter-at-cop27/
  46. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/conferences/side-events-and-exhibits
  47. https://climatenetwork.org/resource/the-colossal-fossil/
  48. https://climatenetwork.org/2025/06/24/unfccc-parties-must-protect-civic-space-in-climate-talks/
  49. https://climatenetwork.org/2025/06/21/unfccc-censorship-of-palestine-solidarity-ngos-at-bonn-sb-62-call-out-moral-crisis-within-the-un-climate-process-2/
  50. https://climatenetwork.org/2025/10/13/a-global-call-for-equity-in-mineral-value-chains-at-cop30/
  51. https://climatenetwork.org/cop-27/actions-and-campaigns-during-cop27/
  52. https://climatenetwork.org/resource/climate-action-network-position-the-world-needs-a-fair-fast-full-and-funded-fossil-fuel-phase-out/
  53. https://climatenetwork.org/resource/climate-action-network-position-on-bioenergy/
  54. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/climate-action-network-annual-report-2021
  55. https://climatenetwork.org/our-work/
  56. https://caneurope.org/campaigns/
  57. https://caneurope.org/active_campaigns/together-for-100-renewable-europe/
  58. https://climatenetwork.org/resource/peoples-voices-in-national-climate-action-plans-civil-society-perspectives-from-kenya-the-kyrgyz-republic-morocco-and-the-philippines/
  59. https://climatenetwork.org/person/felipe-pino-zuniga-can-latin-america-canla/
  60. https://climatenetwork.org/resource/guidelines-for-ndcs-3-0delivering-on-the-gst-outcome-and-beyond/
  61. http://climatenetwork.org/can-annual-reports
  62. https://climatenetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/can_annual_report2017-1.pdf
  63. https://climatenetwork.org/resource/climate-action-network-annual-report-2021/
  64. https://climatenetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/CAN-I-Annual-Report-2021-1.pdf
  65. https://climatenetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Can_Annual_Reports_web_spread.pdf
  66. https://climatenetwork.org/resource_type/reports/
  67. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/cop21cmp11_hls_speech_can.pdf
  68. https://climatenetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/can_final_cop21_cmp11_intervention.pdf
  69. https://climatenetwork.org/2025/02/11/over-90-of-countries-fail-to-submit-new-ndcs-by-deadline/
  70. https://climatenetwork.org/resource/can-position-carry-over-of-surplus-kyoto-assigned-amount-units-aaus-august-2012/
  71. https://climatenetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/BAM_DiscussionPaper_20251011.pdf
  72. https://www.wri.org/insights/4-charts-explain-greenhouse-gas-emissions-countries-and-sectors
  73. https://www.unep.org/interactives/emissions-gap-report/2023/
  74. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/chapter/chapter-2/
  75. https://climateactiontracker.org/global/emissions-pathways/
  76. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/paris-global-climate-change-agreements
  77. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-energy-data-explorer
  78. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions
  79. https://www.econtalk.org/bjorn-lomborg-on-the-costs-and-benefits-of-attacking-climate-change/
  80. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01405-6
  81. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2022/10/05/further-delaying-climate-policies-will-hurt-economic-growth
  82. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301420724006019
  83. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/commentary/forced-transition-wind-and-solar-will-impose-real-costs-canadians
  84. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0160449X241281938
  85. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2023/11/the-cost-of-job-loss-in-carbon-intensive-sectors-evidence-from-germany_4ff4f3b3/6f636d3b-en.pdf
  86. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421521002937
  87. https://energytransition.org/2024/11/what-is-the-status-of-energy-poverty-in-the-european-union/
  88. https://www.resources.org/common-resources/decarbonization-it-aint-that-easy/
  89. https://www.usip.org/publications/2024/04/how-traumatic-decarbonization-can-impact-political-stability-and-peace
  90. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/lost-green-transition-measurement-and-stylised-facts
  91. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/12/exclusive-climate-skeptic-files-sweeping-rico-lawsuit-against-most-all-climate-related-ngos-and-some-individuals/
  92. https://heartland.org/opinion/lawsuit-targets-climate-alarmism-enterprise/
  93. https://cdn.climatepolicyradar.org/navigator/USA/2016/goldstein-v-climate-action-network_9e7a35252dc204248afd34906b63cdd8.pdf
  94. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/19133606/Goldstein_v_Climate_Action_Network_et_al
  95. https://heartland.org/opinion/the-climate-action-network-funding-climate-alarmist-stunts-around-the-world/
  96. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/climate/2015-paris-climate-talks/a-stunt-by-environmental-activists-targets-climate-skeptics
  97. https://cldc.org/immediate-release-climate-deniers-slapp-rico-case-thrown-out-of-texas-federal-court/
  98. https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/us-climate-action-network/
  99. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/u-s-climate-action-network-uscan-bias/
  100. https://climateactionnetwork.ca/supply-and-confidence-agreement-means-government-must-deliver-on-and-go-beyond-its-climate-promises/
  101. https://www.climatecasechart.com/document/goldstein-v-climate-action-network_8623
  102. https://www.scribd.com/document/327432104/Goldstein-v-Climate-Action-Network-et-al
  103. https://www.climatecasechart.com/collections/goldstein-v-climate-action-network_175a40
  104. https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/204597308
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.