Search Climate Insights Directory

Carbon Market Watch and partner organizations urge ERM Certification and Verification Services Ltd not to validate the Sujiahekou Hydropower Station, alleging that the project owner failed to consider the CDM before construction, may have provided untruthful information, and may lack required legal approval from China's National Development and Reform Committee (NDRC).

The report denounces the Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment (RAI) as a mechanism to legitimise 'land grabbing' by corporations and governments. It argues that voluntary guidelines cannot remedy the systemic human rights violations, environmental destruction, and food insecurity caused by large-scale land acquisitions, which it claims are driven by financial speculation rather than food security. The authors call for an immediate ban on large-scale land transactions, the return of misappropriated lands to communities, and a transition toward food sovereignty based on peasant agriculture and agroecology.

Friends of the Earth International and a coalition of social movements denounce the 'Responsible Agricultural Investment' (RAI) principles promoted by the World Bank and other international agencies. The document asserts that these voluntary guidelines serve as a 'moral facade' for financial speculation and corporate land grabbing, which lead to forced evictions, water privatization, and the destruction of small-scale farming. It calls for the immediate suspension of land grabs, the return of stolen lands, and a transition toward food sovereignty based on agroecological methods and genuine land reform.

The author contends that nuclear power is uniquely dangerous and economically unviable compared to renewable energy. Using the Fukushima disaster as a catalyst, the text argues that nuclear plants are too slow and costly to effectively combat climate change, noting that private investment has shifted toward renewables. The author suggests that the global decline of nuclear power is driven by market forces rather than isolated accidents, and urges the U.S. and Japan to move toward a post-nuclear energy future.

The document provides a technical overview of nuclear containment, the process of reactor and spent fuel pool meltdowns, and the specific risks posed by radioactive isotopes like iodine-131 and cesium-137. It argues that U.S. nuclear plants share the same key vulnerabilities as the Fukushima reactors, particularly regarding power outages and spent fuel storage, and critiques the NRC's lack of requirements for new reactor designs to be demonstrably safer than existing ones.

The document argues that the IFC's draft Sustainability Framework fails to adequately protect human rights, noting that references to human rights were removed from previous drafts. The signatories call for mandatory human rights due diligence for both the IFC and its clients, alignment with the UN 'Protect, Respect and Remedy' framework, and specific safeguards regarding water rights, gender impacts, forced evictions, and environmental damage.

A coalition of environmental and human rights organizations is challenging the registration of the Barro Blanco Hydroelectric Project (PA #3237) in Western Panama. The groups argue that the project's additionality is questionable and raise serious concerns regarding the lack of public consultation, the potential misuse of Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) for community compensation, and human rights abuses by GENISA against the Ngobe indigenous peoples.

The report argues that the GM crop industry is built on unsubstantiated claims and that the technology primarily benefits biotech corporations rather than farmers or consumers. It documents rising public and legal opposition in Europe, the US, and Asia, while highlighting the environmental and health risks associated with herbicide-tolerant crops and the emergence of 'superweeds'. The document also examines the push for GM animals and the influence of the US government and the Gates Foundation in promoting GMOs in Africa and Latin America, often at the expense of local food sovereignty.

The document is a formal letter from a coalition of civil society organisations to the co-chairs of the Inter Ministerial Committee on Acid Mine Drainage (IMC), expressing alarm over the uncontrolled decant of untreated acid mine drainage (AMD) in the Witwatersrand Basin. The authors argue that the State has failed its constitutional obligations to protect the environment and public health, citing a lack of transparency, the exclusion of civil society, and unreasonable delays in implementing treatment solutions. They specifically criticize the preference for 'neutralisation' as an inadequate short-term fix and highlight ecological crises such as fish kills in the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site and pollution at the Grootvlei mine. The letter demands the public release of expert reports and a decision on treatment proposals by 2 February 2011, threatening legal action if these demands are not met.

The document critiques carbon markets, specifically the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), as tools that perpetuate dependence on fossil fuels and facilitate 'carbon colonialism'. It highlights how offsetting allows rich nations to outsource their climate responsibilities to developing countries, often resulting in human rights violations, land grabbing, and the funding of projects like coal plants or gas flaring. The author advocates for a systemic transformation based on energy efficiency, renewable energy, and public climate finance instead of market-based mechanisms.

The authors challenge the U.S. government's 2010 estimate of a $21 Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), arguing it underestimates climate risks. By adjusting the DICE model to include higher climate sensitivity, more severe damage estimates at both low and high temperatures, and a lower discount rate, the authors find the SCC could reach $893 in 2010 and $1,500 by 2050. They conclude that if these higher risks are plausible, the SCC exceeds the cost of maximum feasible abatement, making a precautionary approach to rapid emission elimination the most cost-effective strategy.

The Centre for Environmental Rights and other NGOs contend that the JSE's SRI Index undermines environmental regulation by listing companies that are non-compliant with environmental laws. They propose that the Index should require legal compliance as a minimum qualification, implement independent methods to identify enforcement actions using public data, and require companies to self-report environmental violations and fines annually. The document highlights that environmental non-compliance is price-sensitive information, citing a 19% drop in Coal of Africa Limited shares in November 2010 following enforcement action.

An open letter from civil society organizations to the COP 16 Presidency calling for the suspension of carbon credits for HFC-23 projects due to methodology flaws that lead to over-issuance. The authors urge the UNFCCC to rescind credits issued since November 26, 2010, and suggest transitioning HFC-23 management to the Montreal Protocol to ensure real emission reductions.

A coalition of NGOs argues that HFC-23 projects, which account for half of all CDM carbon credits, are based on a flawed methodology leading to the over-issuance of credits that do not represent real emission reductions. The letter criticizes the CDM Executive Board for resuming credit issuance despite these findings and calls for the rescission of credits issued since 26 November 2010, a total halt on further issuance until methodology is corrected, and the adoption of HFC phase-down measures under the Montreal Protocol.

A coalition of environmental NGOs argues that the JSE's SRI Index is 'fatally flawed' because it includes companies that are 'serious and serial offenders' of environmental legislation. The letter provides evidence from National Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Reports (NECERs) and government reports showing that several listed companies—including Exxaro Resources, Arcelor Mittal South Africa, and Sasol—have committed criminal offences related to air emissions, waste disposal, and water use licenses. The NGOs call for the JSE to revise its criteria to explicitly require legal compliance and strengthen its verification methods.

Carbon Market Watch reports that over 800,000 Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) were issued to an HFC-23 abatement project in India on 12 November 2010, despite a suspension of HFC-23 credit issuance enacted by the Executive Board in August 2010. The organization suggests the issuance may have been an error and urges the Board to recall the credits and review the project. Additionally, CDM Watch advises potential buyers from Germany, the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, France, and Switzerland to refrain from using these credits for compliance.

Civil society organizations, including CDM Watch and EIA, sent open letters to various financial institutions and energy companies to express concerns over HFC-23 projects under the CDM. The letters argue that these projects lack environmental integrity, reward inefficient production, and create perverse incentives for the production of HCFC-22. The signatories call for changes to CDM methodology and the exclusion of these credits from the EU ETS.

The author critiques South Africa's proposed industrial strategy, which relies on state subsidies, selective import barriers, and 'infant industry' protection. Drawing on examples from East Asia, the paper argues that such policies often fail and that sustainable growth in the 21st century requires integrating into global production chains, attracting foreign investment, and improving basic infrastructure and education rather than relying on government intervention to 'pick winners'.

The report argues that GM crops are primarily grown for animal feed and fuels rather than human food, and that industry claims regarding yield increases and climate change mitigation are unsupported by evidence. It highlights the rise of herbicide-resistant 'super weeds' in the US and the Southern Cone, the displacement of indigenous communities, and the risks of corporate seed monopolies. The document advocates for agro-ecology as a sustainable alternative to the industrial GM model.

The report challenges the narrative that genetically modified (GM) crops are a solution to global hunger and climate change, asserting that they primarily benefit biotechnology corporations. It argues that GM crops have not increased yields, have led to an increase in pesticide use due to the emergence of 'super-weeds,' and are often used for animal feed and biofuels rather than human consumption. The document highlights the concentration of market power in companies like Monsanto and describes the negative socio-environmental impacts in the Southern Cone of South America, including deforestation and the displacement of indigenous communities. It concludes that agroecology offers a more sustainable and effective alternative for climate adaptation and food sovereignty.