Search Climate Insights Directory

Friends of the Earth President Brent Blackwelder describes President Bush's global warming strategy as a "complete charade" designed to avoid curbing emissions. The organization argues that the United States, which produces 25 percent of global greenhouse gases, is failing its moral responsibility to lead the fight against global warming by attempting to derail U.N. talks and G8 discussions.

Friends of the Earth-U.S. condemns President George W. Bush's 'major emitters' summit as a 'go-it-alone strategy' that prioritizes voluntary measures over the United Nations framework, claiming this approach isolates the U.S. and risks a 'global warming catastrophe'.

This executive summary by Friends of the Earth challenges the Malaysian Palm Oil Council's (MPOC) claims that Malaysian palm oil is sustainable. It argues that expansion, particularly in Sarawak, is driving tropical deforestation, the destruction of peat lands, and human rights violations against indigenous peoples like the Penan. The report highlights the role of European and American bio-energy targets in driving this demand and calls for the EU to abandon its 10% biofuel target and for the Malaysian government to recognize Native Customary Rights and enforce a zero-burning policy.

The author contends that South Africa's current account deficit is sustainable because it is driven by capital inflows and the import of capital and intermediate goods rather than consumption. The paper warns that 'mercantilist' attempts to force a trade surplus through currency devaluation or trade barriers would damage the economy and hurt the poor. Instead, the author advocates for long-term competitiveness through the National Industrial Policy Framework (NIPF) and ASGISA, specifically by addressing low productivity, fostering technological change, and liberalising network industries like electricity and transport to remove structural bottlenecks.

This briefing by Friends of the Earth International contends that forests provide value beyond carbon sequestration and warns that integrating REDD into carbon markets threatens indigenous land rights and climate goals. It advocates for direct funding of community-led conservation, the recognition of territorial rights for over one billion forest-dependent people, and a shift in responsibility toward industrialized nations to reduce emissions and address the root causes of deforestation, such as biofuels and industrial extraction.

A collective statement signed by over 62 prominent scientists (and later 15,000 others) alleging that the George W. Bush administration systematically disregarded scientific objectivity. The authors cite specific instances of censorship at the EPA and other agencies, the appointment of unqualified individuals to advisory boards, and the misrepresentation of climate change data. They propose legislative reforms to forbid censorship of scientific studies and ensure public access to government research.

The document critiques the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) for promoting large-scale biofuel monocultures as a 'clean energy' solution. It argues that these projects, particularly in Brazil and Colombia, lead to deforestation, biodiversity loss, and rural displacement while failing to provide significant greenhouse gas reductions. The report calls for a shift toward small-scale, decentralized energy systems that support local food security and rural development.

The report analyzes DEFRA's 2007 approach to setting the UK's internal carbon price at £25 per tonne of CO2e. The authors argue that DEFRA's 'shadow price of carbon' (SPC) is fundamentally flawed because it is based on an assumed future stabilization trajectory of 550ppm CO2e rather than the actual 'business-as-usual' trajectory. This circular logic creates a low price that fails to discourage high-carbon projects. The report further critiques DEFRA's use of a 3.5% discount rate over the lower rate suggested by the Stern Review, and argues that the UK's carbon price should reflect historical responsibility and the need for early technological innovation.

The document critiques the World Bank's proposed Climate Investment Funds (CIF), consisting of the Clean Technology Fund and the Strategic Climate Fund, arguing that the Bank is an unsuitable manager due to its continued financing of fossil fuels. It highlights concerns regarding the lack of democratic design, the potential for funding 'clean coal', and the unethical use of repayable loans for adaptation in developing countries. The author calls for climate financing to be moved into a transparent multilateral framework under the UNFCCC.

The document critiques 'oil aid'—public financing for fossil fuel infrastructure in the Global South—arguing it exacerbates the 'resource curse', benefits wealthy nations and corporations over the poor, and undermines climate action. It calls for a shift in public subsidies toward renewable energy to achieve a socially just energy transition.

The author contends that sub-Saharan Africa's underdevelopment stems from the mismanagement of economic surpluses by political elites who exploited their power to maintain high living standards and fund failing industrial projects. Comparing the divergent paths of Ghana and South Korea since 1965, the text argues that current frameworks like Nepad fail to address the power imbalance between elites and producers. To achieve development, the author proposes introducing freehold land ownership for peasants, granting producers direct access to world markets for cash crops, and establishing independent financial and technical institutions supported by foreign donors.

The paper examines how South Africa's failure to deliver basic services, such as sanitation in the Free State province, persists despite available funding. It highlights a critical gap between national policy goals and local implementation, driven by widespread municipal corruption, a lack of skilled personnel in project management and engineering, and the inability of local governments to utilize infrastructure grants. The author uses this situation to critique the Commission for Africa's proposal for increased aid, suggesting that without a realistic assessment of implementation capacity, additional funds will not effectively reduce poverty.

Friends of the Earth International rejects the Roundtable on Responsible Soy (RTRS), claiming it provides a "façade of sustainability" for agribusinesses and energy companies while failing to address the systemic impacts of industrial soy. The document highlights how soy expansion leads to deforestation, biodiversity loss, human rights violations, and increased food insecurity. It specifically criticizes the promotion of genetically modified (GM) soy, noting substantial increases in herbicide use in Brazil and the United States. The statement argues that the RTRS ignores indirect regional and global impacts, such as the displacement of agriculture into primary forests and the pollution caused by intensive livestock production in Europe. To address these issues, the organization calls for structural land reforms, reduced global demand for meat and dairy, and an end to large-scale agrofuel production.

The International Federation of Friends of the Earth rejects the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS), claiming it provides a facade of sustainability for multinational corporations while ignoring the systemic impacts of industrial soy monocultures. The document details how soy expansion leads to biodiversity loss, climate change, human rights violations, and food insecurity. It specifically criticizes the promotion of genetically modified (GM) soy, noting significant increases in pesticide use in Brazil and the US. The text argues that demand is driven by intensive livestock farming and biofuels, and calls for structural land reforms, reduced meat consumption, and a shift toward organic and local agriculture.

Friends of the Earth calls for the resignation of EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, citing a pattern of ignoring scientific recommendations, violating legal mandates regarding greenhouse gas emissions, and retaliating against whistleblowers.

Earthjustice calls for the resignation of EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, citing a rebellion by 10,000 agency employees who accuse him of ignoring scientific advice to appease political interests. The document highlights specific failures, including the refusal to allow California to regulate vehicle greenhouse gas emissions and delays in obeying a Supreme Court order to regulate greenhouse gases. It further notes congressional investigations into conflicts of interest on EPA advisory panels and contrasts Johnson's inaction with the tenure of former administrator Christine Todd Whitman.

The report argues that genetically modified (GM) crops provide no substantive environmental, social, or economic benefits. It highlights a significant increase in pesticide use, particularly glyphosate, due to the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds in the US, Brazil, and Argentina. The document further contends that GM crops do not increase yields—citing evidence that Roundup Ready soy may actually suffer yield losses—and that they do not address global hunger, as most are used for animal feed or biofuels in wealthy nations. Additionally, it criticizes the concentration of seed control by a few multinational corporations, which increases costs and restricts farmers' ability to save seeds.

The report argues that GM crops provide no ecological, social, or economic benefits. It highlights that herbicide-tolerant (HT) varieties promote the development of resistant weeds, leading to increased pesticide application in the US, Brazil, and Argentina. The document further asserts that GM crops do not increase yields or food security, as most are used for animal feed or biofuels rather than human consumption, and that seed monopolies increase costs for farmers.

The report argues that GM crops, particularly herbicide-tolerant varieties, have not increased yields and have instead led to an increase in pesticide use due to the emergence of resistant 'superweeds'. It highlights the monopolization of the seed market by a few agrochemical giants, specifically Monsanto, and documents negative socio-economic impacts on small farmers in India, South Africa, and South America, including increased debt and land displacement.

The report argues that GM crops, particularly herbicide-tolerant (HT) and Bt varieties, have failed to deliver promised benefits in yield and poverty reduction. It documents a significant increase in pesticide use and the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds in the US, Argentina, and Brazil. The document further highlights the monopolization of the seed market by a few firms, specifically Monsanto, and the resulting economic pressure and legal harassment of farmers. Case studies in India, China, and South Africa suggest that yield increases are often due to weather or irrigation rather than GM technology, while small farmers face increased debt and vulnerability.