Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that Community Forest Management (MCB) and agroecology are complementary political and technical practices that protect biodiversity and ensure food sovereignty. It critiques top-down conservation models like REDD+ and the FAO's narrow definition of forests, which the author claims facilitate industrial monocultures and the displacement of local communities. The document highlights the role of traditional knowledge, women's autonomy, and local markets in maintaining ecosystem health, providing evidence from the Amazon, Southeast Asia, Africa, and Europe.

The report argues that community forest management (CFM) and agroecology are complementary systems based on shared principles of territorial control, traditional knowledge, and gender autonomy. It contends that these community-led approaches are more effective at preserving biodiversity and ensuring food security than top-down 'green economy' solutions, such as REDD+ or industrial monoculture plantations. The document specifically critiques the FAO's definition of forests for excluding social and cultural dimensions, which it argues facilitates deforestation and the displacement of local populations. It advocates for the recognition of collective land rights and the promotion of local markets to support sustainable, non-anthropocentric relationships with nature.

The Center for International Environmental Law criticizes the Green Climate Fund (GCF) for decreasing transparency and hindering civil society participation, specifically citing a proposed ethics policy that acts as a 'gag order' and the practice of holding crucial policy discussions in closed-door 'informal' meetings.

Scientists for Global Responsibility and other campaign organisations condemn the sponsorship of 'New Scientist Live' by Shell and BAE Systems, arguing that such partnerships provide unethical companies with unmerited social legitimacy and allow them to deflect from their environmental and human rights impacts.

The document denounces the neoliberal capitalist system and the 'destructive practices' of transnational corporations as drivers of climate injustice and disaster severity in the Global South. It specifically highlights the impact of Hurricane Irma and earthquakes in Mexico, arguing that the most vulnerable are disproportionately affected. The statement rejects 'false solutions' such as the financialization of nature and REDD, instead advocating for 'people’s solutions' including food sovereignty, agroecology, and energy sovereignty to preserve life and manage the commons.

The statement argues that climate disasters, such as Hurricane Irma and the earthquake in Mexico, are results of the neoliberal capitalist system's production and consumption patterns. It criticizes global policies that promote the privatization and financialization of nature, such as REDD and Payments for Environmental Services, as 'false solutions' that protect corporate interests. The document advocates for popular alternatives including food sovereignty, agroecology, and energy sovereignty to preserve life and ensure environmental, social, and gender justice.

The document argues that the European Commission exceeded its legal mandate by proposing a clause that would exempt chemicals intended to act as endocrine disruptors from the ban established by the 2009 Pesticides Regulation. ClientEarth asserts that the Commission is using the process of defining scientific criteria as a 'Trojan horse' to weaken environmental and health protections for economic reasons, thereby violating the balance of power between EU institutions.

ClientEarth opposes a proposed derogation that would allow recycled PVC to contain up to 1% lead compounds, arguing that it underestimates environmental risks, creates enforcement loopholes, and undermines the circular economy by associating recycled materials with substances of very high concern.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) critiques the Science Advisory Board's (SAB) draft review of the EPA's biogenic CO2 accounting framework, specifically opposing the use of a 100-year 'emissions horizon' for policy decisions. CATF argues that such a long timeframe is incompatible with the legal and technical capabilities of the EPA and state agencies to enforce regrowth and fossil fuel displacement assumptions. They recommend that the Biogenic Accounting Factor (BAF) be presented as a dynamic, time-dependent curve rather than a single point, allowing regulators to evaluate BAF based on specific policy contexts.

Friends of the Earth criticizes a Department of Energy grid reliability study for omitting climate change and advocating for expedited permitting for coal and nuclear infrastructure, which the organization views as a bailout for non-competitive, dirty energy sources.

The author examines the relationship between rising global military spending and international stability, arguing that the logic of deterrence often fails to eliminate threats like terrorism and can instead trigger security dilemmas. The text highlights a negative correlation between military spending and GDP growth, particularly in OECD countries, and suggests that diverting funds toward social policy could reduce radicalization. It proposes that the EU should prioritize integrated defense instruments, such as EU battlegroups, and strengthen arms control regulations to mitigate the risks of an inflationary arms race.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) supports the objectives of the Climate Change Mitigation Policies and Measures (PAMs) study but argues that its current methodology is too narrow. The CER contends that limiting the analysis to carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide excludes other critical greenhouse gases and pollutants, such as hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulphur hexafluoride, black carbon, and hydrochlorofluorocarbons, which could undermine the accuracy of the modelling and miss significant mitigation opportunities.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), on behalf of the Life After Coal Campaign, asserts that the CSIR's alternative IRP and the DoE's draft IRP omit substantial externalities associated with coal and nuclear energy. The letter highlights an estimated R33 billion annual economic cost from air pollution due to coal-fired generation and argues that water consumption figures are underestimated or based on inaccurate data. It further notes that the circulating fluidised bed combustion technology planned for the Thabametsi power station results in significant nitrous oxide emissions, making it 60% worse in GHG emission intensity than the Medupi and Kusile stations. Finally, the CER demands the inclusion of nuclear decommissioning, fuel storage, and insurance costs to ensure a fair assessment of energy options.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), writing on behalf of the Life After Coal Campaign, submitted additional comments to the South African Department of Energy regarding the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and Integrated Energy Plan (IEP). The letter argues that current energy modelling fails to account for critical externalities, specifically the health and water costs of coal, the high nitrous oxide emissions associated with circulating fluidised bed combustion technology, and comprehensive nuclear lifecycle costs.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that the U.S. NAFTA negotiating objectives are ambiguous and fail to protect the public interest. Key concerns include the lack of a stance against Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), the potential for 'regulatory coherence' to undermine environmental and health standards, and the promotion of fossil fuel investment over green energy. CIEL calls for binding environmental protections, compliance with the Paris Agreement, and increased transparency in the negotiation process.

The Clean Air Task Force opposes the EPA's proposed stays on emission standards for new, reconstructed, and modified oil and gas sources, asserting that the agency lacks the legal authority under the Clean Air Act and the Administrative Procedure Act to postpone compliance dates for an already-effective rule. The organization highlights that staying leak detection and repair requirements would eliminate over half of the rule's methane reductions and nearly 90 percent of its toxic air emissions benefits, disproportionately impacting the health of children and vulnerable populations living near facilities.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) criticizes the proposed Multilateral Investment Court (MIC), stating that its focus on institutional reform does not resolve the systemic issues of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). CIEL argues that the MIC would continue to elevate investor rights over human rights, labor, and environmental laws while excluding civil society and governments from bringing claims. The document advocates for a broader multilateral approach to trade and investment based on sustainability and public good, suggesting that any court should refuse jurisdiction to law-breaking investors and deny claims against public interest measures.

A group of environmental scientists warns that proposed EU forest accounting rules, which would allow policy-driven increases in harvesting to be included in the baseline, could hide up to 400 MtCO2/yr of emissions. They argue that any reduction in the forest sink is effectively a net increase in emissions and that failing to account for this would undermine the credibility of EU bioenergy accounting, contradict the Paris Agreement, and compromise the EU's alignment with IPCC 2°C trajectories.

A group of environmental scientists warns that proposed EU forest accounting rules, which would allow increased harvesting to be included in the baseline, could hide up to 400 MtCO2/yr of emissions. They argue this approach undermines the credibility of bioenergy accounting, contradicts the Paris Agreement, and risks failure to meet the IPCC 2°C trajectory. The authors advocate for a robust baseline based on historical data and forest dynamics to ensure transparency and climate credibility.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) asserts that Ontario's nuclear emergency plan is insufficient because it is designed for accidents less severe than the 2011 Fukushima disaster. The briefing highlights risks to the Great Lakes drinking water and the high population density near the Darlington and Pickering stations, calling for improved health professional training, expanded iodine pill distribution, and a plan for clean water provision.