Search Climate Insights Directory

GreenLatinos criticates the House budget resolution, stating that cuts to environmental protection, energy, and agriculture programs increase the vulnerability of Latino families to extreme weather and environmental hazards, while cuts to Medicaid and SNAP exacerbate existing economic disparities.

A group of French environmental and human rights organizations warns that the European Commission's proposed 'Omnibus' legislation threatens to undermine the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) by limiting corporate vigilance to direct partners, removing mandatory climate transition plans, and rolling back civil liability for failures.

Trend Asia warns that integrating biofuels into the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Global Fuel Standard would drive catastrophic environmental and social damage. The statement highlights that food- and feed-based biofuels, particularly those promoted by Brazil, are linked to land grabbing, deforestation, and life-cycle emissions that can exceed those of fossil diesel. It calls for the IMO to instead prioritize energy efficiency, wind assistance, and demand reduction to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

Earthjustice condemns the closure of the EPA's Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights (OEJECR), which has resulted in 168 civil servants being placed on administrative leave. The organization argues that removing this office, which identifies discriminatory environmental conditions and protects vulnerable communities, will lead to increased health crises—including higher cancer and asthma death rates—and reduced economic opportunities for the most affected populations.

A joint letter from various NGOs urging the European Commission to ensure the EUDR benchmarking process is based on objective risk criteria rather than political factors or sanctions.

A coalition of NGOs and unions, including Reclaim Finance, condemns the French government's reported plan to advocate for the indefinite postponement of the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the raising of its application thresholds. The authors argue that these moves, aligned with business lobby interests, would exclude nearly 70% of targeted companies and undermine European climate and social justice goals.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) argues that the proposed 2024 regulations for unconventional hydrocarbon extraction in South Africa are insufficient to protect water resources and the climate. The CER highlights the extreme water intensity of fracking, the risk of groundwater contamination from toxic chemicals and radioactive materials, and the lack of state capacity for compliance monitoring. They specifically warn that fracking in the semi-arid Karoo region would violate constitutional rights to water and a healthy environment. The document calls for the adoption of the precautionary principle, the implementation of long-term monitoring (up to 300 years) for well integrity, and the requirement for meaningful public participation and community development provisions.

The Europe Gas Tracker 2025 identifies a sprawling planned hydrogen network in Europe consisting of 12 import projects for hydrogen derivatives, 50,165 km of pipelines, and 44.6 GW of hydrogen-burning power capacity. The report argues this scale is unrealistic for decarbonization due to energy inefficiencies and a massive gap between projected green hydrogen production and the network's requirements. Most projects remain in early stages, with no hydrogen derivative import projects having reached final investment decisions. Meanwhile, the report notes that the rapid growth of LNG import capacity, which increased by 31% since February 2022, is slowing as structural gas demand falls and overcapacity emerges.

The document critiques biodiversity offsetting and crediting mechanisms, asserting that they simplify complex ecosystems into tradable units, facilitate greenwashing by corporations, and threaten the land rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. It argues that these market-based approaches are 'worse than nothing' because they provide an illusion of progress while bypassing the mitigation hierarchy. Instead, the authors advocate for transformational change, the redirection of harmful subsidies, and the provision of biodiversity finance through grants and direct access to Indigenous-led governance systems.

The document critiques biodiversity offsets and credits, asserting that these mechanisms facilitate continued environmental destruction through 'greenwashing' and risk violating human rights. It argues that nature's complexity cannot be reduced to tradable units and suggests redirecting existing harmful subsidies toward indigenous-led conservation and direct grants instead of market-based instruments.

The document critiques biodiversity credits and offsets as illusory mechanisms that facilitate 'greenwashing' and allow destructive companies to avoid responsibility. It argues that these market-based tools simplify complex ecosystems into tradable units, often leading to human rights violations, land grabbing, and the displacement of local communities. The text suggests that instead of market mechanisms, biodiversity should be funded by redirecting harmful subsidies and supporting indigenous-led governance.

The document critiques biodiversity offsets and credits as 'false solutions' that facilitate greenwashing and human rights violations while failing to restore ecosystems. It argues that these mechanisms allow companies to avoid responsibility for environmental destruction and suggests that funding for biodiversity should instead come from redirecting harmful subsidies and providing direct grants to indigenous-led initiatives.

The report critiques debt-for-nature swaps as 'green traps' that benefit creditors and international NGOs over debtor nations and local communities. It details how these mechanisms often replace old debts with new, more expensive loans, transfer territorial control to external actors, and encourage the commodification of nature. Through case studies in countries like Belize, Ecuador, and Gabon, the document illustrates the gap between promised conservation funds and actual spending, while highlighting the social costs, including the displacement of indigenous peoples. The author calls for the cancellation of illegitimate debts and the recognition of the North's ecological debt to the South.

The document critiques debt-for-nature swaps (DNS) as a 'green trap' that fails to provide real debt relief or effective conservation. It argues that these mechanisms, particularly recent market-based 'blue bonds', transfer territorial control to international NGOs and private actors, often imposing higher interest rates and restrictive conditionalities. The report highlights how sovereign debt forces Global South countries into extractivist models to generate foreign currency, and calls for the cancellation of illegitimate debts and the recognition of the North's ecological debt to the South.

The document argues that carbon markets are 'false climate solutions' that enable big polluters to continue emitting greenhouse gases through 'greenwashing' while causing land grabbing and human rights violations in the Global South. It details how carbon credits are generated from nature-based solutions and 'techno-fixes', warns communities about deceptive contracts and the failure of industry 'safeguards', and provides a framework for resistance based on climate justice and the right to say no.

Natural Justice assesses South Africa's 2025 draft NDC, acknowledging progress in absolute emissions targets but warning that these are undermined by over-reliance on international conditionality and a lack of concrete implementation plans. The submission argues that the draft fails to meet the 'highest possible ambition' standard set by the ICJ, citing gaps in adaptation financing, the exclusion of natural disturbance emissions from accounting, and the absence of a clear fossil fuel phase-out schedule. It recommends integrating a Human Rights-Based Approach (HRBA), establishing a grant-based Loss and Damage facility funded partly by a tax on fossil fuel profits, and mandating Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) for all climate projects.

Carbon Market Watch condemns FIFA's hosting decisions for the 2030 and 2034 World Cups, asserting that the events will cause severe environmental damage. The organization highlights the failure of the 2022 Qatar World Cup's carbon neutrality claims and warns that the 2030 tournament's multi-continental structure and Saudi Arabia's 2034 bid—which includes building 11 new stadiums—will lead to massive emissions from construction and air travel. The statement also links these decisions to the influence of polluting corporate sponsors like Aramco and raises concerns over migrant worker deaths in host nations.

GreenLatinos opposes the Energy Permitting Reform Act, describing it as a "Trojan horse" that accelerates fossil fuel projects while offering only symbolic clean energy measures. The organization argues that the act would weaken the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which serves as a critical tool for frontline Latino communities to fight environmental injustice and pollution.

A joint statement by Ecojustice, the David Suzuki Foundation, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Breast Cancer Action Quebec, and Environmental Defence criticizing the proposed Watch List approach under CEPA for being overly complex. The organizations advocate for a hazard-based listing process that bypasses risk assessments and public consultations to avoid industry lobbying and delays, urging publication by Spring 2025.

ClientEarth asserts that the EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement undermines the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) by allowing Mercosur countries to influence EU law enforcement and by creating a dispute settlement mechanism that could be used to challenge EUDR implementation. The organization warns that these concessions may force EU Member States to act inconsistently with their legal obligations to ensure deforestation-free imports.