Search Climate Insights Directory

FlightPath 1.5 argues that ICAO's proposed aviation climate deal is insufficient, citing a lack of ambition regarding the 2020 offsetting target, the exclusion of nearly 40% of emissions above 2020 in early years, and a lack of binding environmental criteria for offsets. The group warns against double-counting and the potential for the aviation industry to subsidize the coal industry through ineligible credits.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) supports the decision to discontinue new conditional registrations for pesticides effective June 1, 2016, but argues that the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) must also end existing conditional registrations by a set date. CAPE highlights that 80 pesticide products currently hold conditional registrations, including neonicotinoids linked to pollinator decline and ecosystem damage. Additionally, the document cites a Federal Commissioner's report identifying PMRA failings in assessing cumulative health effects, re-evaluating pre-1995 pesticides, cancelling high-risk products, and maintaining transparency with the public.

This Answering Statement, filed by groundWork through the Centre for Environmental Rights, challenges the environmental authorisation granted to Kuyasa Mining (Pty) Ltd for a 600 MW coal-fired power plant near Delmas, Mpumalanga. The Appellant argues that the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) lacked independence, the project's location in a Highveld Priority Area hotspot will exacerbate air pollution, and the environmental impact assessment failed to adequately address climate change and water scarcity.

The document critiques the PMRA's special review of atrazine, claiming it ignores synergistic effects of pesticide mixtures, fails to assess surface water contamination, and uses less protective drinking water standards than necessary. It cites evidence of atrazine's presence in Canadian groundwater and surface water, as well as its links to endocrine disruption in wildlife and various cancers and developmental issues in humans.

The author warns that the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF), tasked with overseeing Agenda 2030, risks repeating the failures of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) because it remains under the auspices of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). To avoid becoming irrelevant, the HLPF must implement a meticulously prepared reporting system that aggregates national and regional data into manageable, focused debates rather than being overwhelmed by a flood of undigested information.

Carroll Muffett of the Center for International Environmental Law criticizes TransCanada's use of the Investment Chapter of NAFTA to sue the United States for over $15 billion, citing this as evidence that investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) allows corporations to bypass democratic decisions made in the public interest, specifically regarding the Keystone XL pipeline.

The statement criticizes the Paris Agreement for abandoning people and the planet, citing a lack of political ambition and the undue influence of corporate lobbyists. It contrasts this political failure with the rise of a global movement of indigenous peoples, youth, and activists who demand climate justice, agroecology, and community-managed forests over 'false solutions' and corporate greenwashing.

The statement asserts that the Paris climate negotiations were a failure of political leadership, characterized by a lack of ambition and the undue influence of polluting corporations. It highlights the rise of a global movement demanding climate justice, food sovereignty through agroecology, and community-led forest management, contrasting these grassroots efforts with 'false solutions' and cynical deforestation offsets promoted within the UN framework.

Friends of the Earth Africa criticizes the draft Paris agreement for failing to provide adequate resources for adaptation, ignoring climate debt, and promoting market-based mechanisms like REDD that may facilitate land grabs. The organization warns that the current trajectory could lead to 5 to 8 degrees of warming in Africa, causing systemic ecological collapse and mass casualties.

The document criticizes the trend of transforming the VGGT from a human rights-based framework into a corporate tool for risk management and 'greenwashing'. It argues that guides produced by entities like USAID and the G7 New Alliance shift state responsibilities to the private sector, legitimize land grabbing, and falsely equate the power of corporations with that of local communities. The signatories call for states to implement the VGGT in line with human rights obligations, establish a robust monitoring mechanism within the Committee on World Food Security (CSA), and adopt a legally binding instrument for corporations regarding human rights.

The document is a declaration by social movements and civil society organizations criticizing the trend of adapting the UN's Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure (VGGT) into business-centric tools. The authors argue that guides produced by entities like USAID, the G7 New Alliance, and the Interlaken Group transform a human rights framework into a corporate social responsibility (CSR) tool, effectively legitimizing land grabbing. They contend that these guides erroneously treat states and corporations as equal stakeholders and dangerously suggest that private investors can manage land rights recognition and conflict resolution—tasks that are the sole legitimate mandate of the state. The statement calls for states to implement the VGGT based on human rights obligations, for the FAO to provide technical support for state regulation of businesses, and for the adoption of a legally binding international instrument on multinational corporations and human rights.

The statement criticizes recent guides developed by agencies like USAID and the Interlaken Group that frame the VGGT as a tool for corporate risk management and corporate social responsibility. The authors argue that this 'multi-stakeholder' approach wrongly transfers state duties—such as identifying tenure rights and resolving conflicts—to private investors, thereby legitimizing land grabs and ignoring power asymmetries. They call for states to enact laws regulating transnational corporations, ensure free prior and informed consent, and establish a robust monitoring mechanism within the UN Committee on World Food Security.

Friends of the Earth International argues that failing to stop catastrophic climate change will exacerbate poverty, hunger, and conflict, making just climate action a critical peace-building tool. The organization criticizes the French government's state of emergency for restricting civil liberties and cancelling climate justice mobilizations ahead of the December 2015 UN climate negotiations, while asserting that democratic decision-making must be reclaimed from corporate influence.

The document critiques industrial agriculture as a primary driver of climate change and social inequality, while presenting agroecology as a viable, small-scale alternative. It specifically attacks 'Climate Smart Agriculture' (CSA) as a corporate-led 'false solution' designed to greenwash industrial practices. The text advocates for a transition toward food sovereignty and the relocalisation of food systems, highlighting the role of women and traditional knowledge in building climate resilience.

The document contrasts industrial agribusiness with agroecology, asserting that the former is a primary driver of climate change and social inequality. It dismisses 'climate-smart agriculture' as a marketing tool for corporations to maintain power structures without addressing the root causes of the climate crisis. Instead, it advocates for a transition to agroecology, which supports small-scale producers, protects biodiversity, and enhances climate resilience. The text highlights the role of women and traditional knowledge in this transition and calls for public policies that shift resources away from industrial meat and crop production toward food sovereignty.

A letter from 112 global organizations argues that current accounting for the $100 billion climate finance goal is flawed. The groups demand that only public grants count toward the target, that private finance not be substituted for public funding, and that accounting be conducted through the inclusive UNFCCC forum rather than exclusive intergovernmental processes.

Friends of the Earth International criticizes the European Commission's proposed 'modernization' of the ISDS mechanism in the TTIP, asserting that the new court system fails to address the fundamental issue of granting foreign investors privileges over governments and citizens. The organization argues that such arbitration is unnecessary, as most US-EU investments have historically occurred without it, and that the system undermines democratic regulation of the environment and human rights.

The author criticizes the EU's handling of the Greek debt crisis and the refugee crisis as evidence of a failure in solidarity, driven by a 'neoliberal size fits all' approach. The text calls for the Green party to move beyond a defensive, reformist stance and develop a clear vision for a federal Europe capable of addressing global challenges and internal imbalances.

The document asserts that the proposed Baltic MAP is legally inconsistent with the CFP basic regulation because it does not guarantee the restoration and maintenance of fish stocks above levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield (MSY). It specifically criticizes the phrasing 'aim at contributing to the objectives' as allowing for failure to meet CFP goals and argues that the upper limits of proposed exploitation ranges exceed the fishing mortality rate (FMSY) required to restore stocks. The briefing recommends accepting European Parliament amendments to Article 3(1) of the Baltic MAP to ensure legal compliance.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing several environmental justice alliances, submitted a formal objection to the Department of Environmental Affairs' draft Air Quality Offsets Guideline (January 2015). The CER argues that the proposed offsets are actually forms of compensation that lack a legislative framework and could be used by polluters to avoid legal compliance with emission standards.