Search Climate Insights Directory

The fact sheet details how six major corporate players—BP, Microsoft, Drax, IETA, BlackRock, and Shell—employ 'net zero' agendas to maintain business-as-usual operations. It contends that these entities promote 'false solutions' such as carbon offsets, BECCS, and hydrogen to delay emissions cuts at the source. The document further highlights the influence of these corporations on COP26 through sponsorship, lobbying, and participation in industry-led initiatives like the Race to Zero and the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets.

The document critiques the negotiations surrounding Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, specifically the market-based approaches in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.4. It argues that these mechanisms allow developed nations to avoid direct emission reductions and fail to provide necessary public finance to the global South. The author highlights risks such as double counting, lack of environmental integrity, and human rights abuses, including land grabbing and displacement of Indigenous Peoples. Friends of the Earth International advocates for the rejection of carbon markets in favor of non-market approaches (Article 6.8) and direct, grant-based public finance from Northern governments to Southern countries.

The document critiques the 'net zero' narrative promoted by the UK presidency of COP26, arguing that it ignores historical responsibility and relies on scientifically flawed assumptions about carbon removal. It warns that 'net zero' acts as a 'Trojan horse' for dangerous geoengineering and allows polluters to use carbon offsets to maintain business-as-usual emissions. The author calls for a shift toward 'real zero' targets, absolute emission reductions by the Global North, and the exclusion of corporate polluters from COP26.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) rejects Nature-based Solutions (NbS), characterizing the term as a 'wolf in sheep's clothing.' The organization contends that NbS is too vague, allowing harmful practices like industrial monoculture plantations to be labeled as 'natural.' FoEI argues that NbS serves as a greenwashing tool for fossil fuel and agro-industrial companies to justify 'net zero' claims through carbon offsetting rather than actual emission reductions. The document warns that the scale of land required for these projects leads to land grabbing and violates the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, particularly in the Global South. Instead of NbS, FoEI advocates for systemic change through agroecology, community forest management, and a coordinated phase-out of fossil fuels.

The document critiques the negotiations surrounding Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, specifically the market-based approaches of Articles 6.2 and 6.4. It argues that carbon markets are incompatible with the 1.5°C goal and serve as a tool for developed nations and fossil fuel companies to avoid direct emission reductions. The author highlights technical risks such as double counting and the lack of a legal mandate for demand, while advocating for non-market approaches under Article 6.8 and direct public climate finance from the Global North to the Global South.

Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) rejects Nature Based Solutions (NBS), characterizing it as a 'wolf in sheep's clothing' that instrumentalizes nature to serve corporate profits and 'net-zero' offsetting schemes. The document contends that NBS promotes monoculture plantations, enables the financialization of nature, and threatens the sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. FOEI argues that NBS distracts from the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels and instead advocates for systemic changes such as agroecology and Community Forest Management (CFM).

The briefing note critiques the 'net zero' agenda promoted by the UK presidency at COP26, arguing that the concept allows governments and corporations to maintain fossil fuel pathways through deceptive accounting and unproven technologies. It contends that net zero ignores historical responsibility, is inequitable to the global South, and relies on the physical impossibility of natural sinks absorbing all combusted fossil carbon. The author warns that the confusion between carbon removals and offsets is being exploited to create a carbon market potentially worth US$50-100 billion by 2030, which diverts investment from systemic transformation. Friends of the Earth International demands a focus on 'real zero', absolute emissions reductions by 2030, the exclusion of corporate polluters from COP26, and the fulfillment of climate finance obligations by Northern countries.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) rejects Nature-based Solutions (NbS), characterizing the term as a "wolf in sheep's clothing" that masks neocolonialism and corporate greenwashing. The document contends that NbS promotes industrial monoculture plantations and the financialization of nature, which threatens the land rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities, particularly in the Global South. FoEI argues that NbS serves as a distraction from the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels and instead advocates for systemic changes through agroecology and community forest management.

The document critiques the 'net zero' framework promoted by the UK presidency and the 'Race to Zero' initiative for COP26. It asserts that net zero ignores historical responsibility, relies on physically impossible natural carbon sinks, and serves as a 'Trojan horse' for dangerous geoengineering. The author distinguishes between 'removals' and 'offsets', arguing that the latter maintain the status quo and divert investment from systemic transformation. Friends of the Earth International demands a shift toward 'real zero' (absolute emissions reductions), the exclusion of polluting companies from COP26, and the fulfillment of climate finance obligations by Northern countries to support the Global South.

Reclaim Finance claims that TotalEnergies is using 'climate-KPI linked' debt to fund a strategy that remains heavily reliant on oil and gas, arguing that these sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs) lack the ambition required by the Paris Agreement and the 1.5°C trajectory.

ClientEarth argues that the FCA is failing to enforce existing climate-related reporting rules, leading to a prevalence of 'greenwishing' and misleading disclosures among UK-listed companies. The document highlights specific failures by companies such as Centamin plc, Synthomer plc, and Bodycote plc, where material climate risks are omitted or presented inconsistently. ClientEarth calls for a comprehensive review of company reporting and robust enforcement action to align the FCA's activities with the UK Government's 2050 net-zero commitment and the statutory objectives of protecting consumers and market integrity.

Earthjustice contends that the Biden administration's legal defense of the Willow Project and other oil exploration in the Western Arctic contradicts its climate goals. The author highlights the environmental risks to the 23 million-acre National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, the potential release of 260 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the Willow project, and the negative impacts on the traditional caribou hunting practices of the Native Village of Nuiqsut.

Reclaim Finance critiques a proposed initiative by the Asian Development Bank and Prudential to accelerate the closure of coal plants in Asia. The organization warns that the scheme could provide a financial lifeline to polluting plants, allow major fossil fuel funders like Citi, HSBC, and BlackRock to greenwash their reputations, and fail to ensure that resale profits are used for the energy transition rather than further fossil fuel investment.

Reclaim Finance argues that the NGFS's June 2021 climate scenarios are unrealistic and risky because they rely too heavily on carbon capture and storage (CCS) and fail to mandate an end to fossil fuel investments. The document warns that these scenarios, which are used by European and British regulators, could lead financial institutions to fund stranded assets and non-sustainable biomass, ultimately pushing global warming beyond 1.5°C. It calls for the NGFS to align with IEA recommendations by requiring an immediate stop to new coal, oil, and gas projects.

Reclaim Finance criticizes the NGFS's June 2021 climate scenarios for failing to provide realistic 1.5°C pathways. The organization argues that the scenarios rely too heavily on carbon capture and storage (CCS) and fail to mandate an end to fossil fuel investments, which could lead to stranded assets and global warming overshoot. Reclaim Finance recommends that the NGFS align its forecasts with an immediate end to new fossil fuel projects and adopt a precautionary approach to biomass and carbon dioxide removal.

Reclaim Finance argues that Eurizon's March 2021 coal exclusion policy is insufficient due to vague definitions of 'clear direct involvement' in thermal coal and a lack of transparency regarding its implementation. The policy notably fails to address coal expansion plans and excludes index funds, 'LTE' funds, and certain mandates from its scope.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) supports the creation of a National Mine Closure Strategy but argues that the draft must prioritize 'mining affected communities' over 'mining dependent communities' and ensure that closure planning begins at the pre-feasibility stage. The CER emphasizes the need for meaningful public participation, the integration of land reform and economic diversification to support a just transition, and the alignment of the strategy with the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) to prevent 'temporary closure' from becoming a gateway to mine abandonment.

Friends of the Earth International and over 500 other organisations are boycotting the UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS), describing it as a "thinly veiled attempt" by corporations and philanthro-capitalists to dominate food governance. The group argues that the UNFSS promotes "failed and unjust corporate proprietary technologies" and "Nature Positive Food" narratives to allow corporations to continue destructive activities through offsets. In response, they are organising a "Peoples Counter Summit" to advocate for agroecology, food sovereignty, binding corporate regulations, and the protection of the Right to Food.

Friends of the Earth International denounces the United Nations Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) as a mechanism for large corporations, philanthropic capitalists, and Northern countries to dominate food governance. The organization argues that the UNFSS promotes failed patented technologies and 'nature-positive' narratives to protect corporate interests while excluding small-scale producers. In response, it advocates for a transformation based on agroecology, food sovereignty, and binding regulations on corporate power.

Friends of the Earth International is boycotting the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS), describing it as a tool for corporations and philanthropic entities like the World Economic Forum and the Gates Foundation to control food governance. The organization and over 500 partner groups are organizing an alternative summit to advocate for agroecology, food sovereignty, and binding regulations on corporate power, opposing the UNFSS's focus on commercial technological solutions and 'Nature Positive Food' narratives.