Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The document argues that 'net zero' strategies serve as a 'smoke screen' for large corporations to continue fossil fuel extraction and industrial agriculture. It specifically critiques 'nature-based solutions' and soil carbon sequestration as mechanisms that facilitate land grabbing, data appropriation, and the co-optation of agroecology, ultimately benefiting agribusiness and tech firms while undermining the rights of small-scale producers and Indigenous peoples.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • Net zero commitments are characterized as a 'smoke screen' that allows large corporations to maintain profits and continue polluting by offsetting emissions rather than eliminating them, which may actually increase total emissions by enabling the expansion of polluting activities.
  • Industrial food systems are significant climate drivers, with the industrial system responsible for 44% to 57% of emissions, despite the fact that only 24% of the food produced by this system actually reaches people.
  • Nature-based solutions and carbon removal are criticized for relying on a false 'equivalence' between fossil carbon and biomass carbon; biomass storage is volatile and short-term, whereas fossil carbon storage is long-term and vast.
  • The rise of 'carbon farming' and soil carbon sequestration is viewed as a tool for agribusiness and tech companies to engage in 'data grabbing,' using mobile apps and remote verification to control farmer data and dictate land use.
  • The report argues that agroecology is being co-opted by the 'nature-based solutions' framework, which strips agroecology of its transformative political and social goals and reduces nature to 'capital' and profit opportunities.
  • Large-scale carbon offset ambitions require land areas of immense proportions, such as Shell's trajectory requiring a forest nearly the size of Brazil, or Nestlé's ambition potentially requiring 4.4 million hectares of tree planting annually.

Cite the original document

APA
Kill, J. (2022). DOBLE RIESGO. Friends of the Earth International. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/ati-doble-riesgo-resumen-ES.pdf
Chicago
Kill, Jutta. DOBLE RIESGO. Friends of the Earth International, 2022. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/ati-doble-riesgo-resumen-ES.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |last1=Kill |first1=Jutta |title=DOBLE RIESGO |publisher=Friends of the Earth International |date=November 2022 |url=https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/ati-doble-riesgo-resumen-ES.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{kill2022doble, author = {Kill, Jutta}, title = {{DOBLE RIESGO}}, institution = {Friends of the Earth International}, year = {2022}, month = nov, url = {https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/ati-doble-riesgo-resumen-ES.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated