Climate work splits into two questions that coverage runs together: what is physically happening and who is exposed, and whether a proposed intervention works at scale. This is research for the risk analyst, the transition investor and the reporter that keeps them apart — the observed record and its attribution on one side, deployment evidence and processing-concentration risk on the other, with every projection attributed to whoever produced it and under what scenario.
The strongest case against making clothing brands pay for textile recycling is France: after 18 years of per-garment fees, about 32% of textiles are collected against a legally mandated 60% target.
Real climate research from the public library, shown as it was published. The stamps and the sources are the product.
Each one is a question a specialist actually brings, and each is answered by a scan this domain carries — not a generic report with the name swapped in.
“What has the observed record established about this phenomenon, and who is exposed to it now?”
“Has this solution been deployed at scale, or has it been modeled, piloted and pledged?”
“Which instrument is doing the work here, and what does it actually require of whom?”
“Where does the processing chain for this material concentrate, and what breaks if it stops?”
Every judgment carries a grade for how it is actually known, every figure carries who reported it, and the structured record below is read on every scan before the model writes a word.
53 first-tier sources for climate, and 28 blocked outright. Search results are one input; every figure is graded on where it came from, not on being found. How the grades work →
Scale here is systemic weight — the populations, the assets and the supply chains a connection reaches — and Complexity is how uncertain the attribution, the technology or the policy path still is.
Small systemic impact, easy to understand. Contained within a single sector or region.
Meaningful systemic impact and the adaptation pathway is clear. Existing frameworks apply.
Meaningful stakes with real uncertainty. The dynamics may be non-linear, adaptation pathways unclear, or the tradeoffs span across sectors and timescales.
Very high stakes at multi-sector or global scale. Cascading effects, irreversible thresholds, or global consequences make this one of the most important connections, regardless of complexity.
No precedent. A fundamental shift in the Earth system that existing frameworks may not cover.
When systemic impact grows to planetary or multi-system scale, FLOW C reclassifies to FLOW D immediately. The priority shifts from 'analyze carefully' to 'mobilize response.'
Planetary-scale systemic impact means FLOW D regardless of complexity. A straightforward situation requiring multi-national coordination is FLOW D, not FLOW A.
FLOW S requires conditions that fall entirely outside existing climate science and adaptation frameworks — max 1-2 per analysis. The test: do existing models and response mechanisms apply at all?
One vocabulary across every domain — a FLOW D here reads at the same weight as a FLOW D in any other — so the classification travels, and so does your judgment. The framework in full →
7 ways in, then the rest of the catalog organised as the Climate workbench organises it — establish the background, map the argument, work the record, analyse the connections, decide what to do. Every one comes back graded, sourced and exportable.
Don’t know which one you need? The Router reads a plain question and picks one; the Planner takes a goal and designs a linked sequence. Every completed scan opens onto its own follow-ups — ask it a question, re-check what has changed, red-team its judgments, or push a signal onto your watchboard.
And the Studio turns a set of climate scans into a planned, researched, edited report or book. Every format →
Open the climate workbench with a phenomenon, a solution, a material or a policy. What comes back keeps the two apart.