Search Climate Insights Directory

The document highlights a severe financial crisis at PLN, characterized by a 38 trillion rupiah loss in Q1 2020 and 500 trillion rupiah in debt linked to the 35,000 MW infrastructure project. It argues that the Java-Bali system is suffering from oversupply due to overestimated economic growth and electricity demand projections. The text calls for the government to stop new coal-fired power plant projects, such as PLTU Jawa 9 & 10, to prevent further losses and environmental damage.

Mighty Earth claims that JBS is using 'PR spin' to mask a lack of progress in its deforestation commitments. The organization asserts that JBS only monitors a small portion of its supply chain in the Amazon, ignoring the Brazilian Cerrado and legal deforestation, while failing to enforce existing policies against non-compliant suppliers.

The report presents a critique of the capitalist, patriarchal, and colonial systems as the root causes of the Covid-19 pandemic and broader ecological crises. It advocates for a 'transformative economy' that prioritizes the sustainability of life over capital accumulation, emphasizing the central role of care work, food sovereignty, and the decommodification of public services. The authors call for a new internationalism based on solidarity and the payment of ecological debts from the Global North to the Global South, while rejecting corporate 'greenwashing' and 'net-zero' strategies.

The document critiques 'net zero' targets as a form of 'greenwashing' that allows continued greenhouse gas emissions by relying on unproven future technologies and carbon offsets. It argues that these targets often shift the burden of carbon sequestration to the Global South, facilitating 'carbon colonialism'. The authors call for 'Real Zero' targets, which require immediate, absolute reductions in emissions, particularly from developed nations, and the implementation of systemic solutions in energy, agriculture, and transport.

The document critiques 'net zero' targets as a façade for continued pollution, highlighting the risks of relying on unproven carbon removal technologies and the injustice of shifting sequestration burdens to the global South. It calls for 'Real Zero' emissions, emphasizing the need for developed nations to take greater responsibility and implement systemic changes in energy, agriculture, and transport.

The report critiques 'net zero' targets as a form of 'greenwashing' that allows polluters to continue emitting greenhouse gases by relying on unproven technologies and carbon offsets. It argues that these targets often shift the burden of carbon sequestration to the Global South, constituting 'carbon colonialism'. The authors advocate for 'real zero' emissions, which require drastic reductions in fossil fuel use, the adoption of agroecology, and a transition to 100% renewable energy, particularly by developed nations in the North.

The Global Campaign argues that the second revised draft of the UN binding treaty on transnational corporations (TNCs) is insufficient and has "lost its soul" by failing to address the accountability gap and corporate capture. The statement highlights critical omissions, including the lack of recognition of TNC obligations to respect human rights, the absence of global value chain references, and the failure to establish effective international legal mechanisms or an international court. It further warns that the draft weakens the liability of parent companies and extends the scope to all enterprises regardless of transnational activity, contrary to Resolution 26/9. Finally, the campaign urges the postponement of the sixth session of the Working Group as a negotiating session, citing the Covid-19 pandemic's impact on the ability of civil society and affected communities, particularly in the Global South, to participate meaningfully.

The Global Campaign criticizes the August 2020 draft of the UN legally binding instrument on transnational corporations, arguing it has 'lost its soul' by diluting its scope and failing to include critical protections for human rights and accountability for global value chains.

The document argues that the plastic industry uses a 'manual' of delay, distraction, and derailment tactics to protect profits and avoid mandatory regulations. It analyzes voluntary commitments from ten major polluters and over 50 collective initiatives, concluding that they lack transparency, accountability, and effectiveness. The report highlights how companies promote 'false solutions' like chemical recycling and bio-based plastics while lobbying against deposit return systems and mandatory collection targets. Case studies across 15 countries demonstrate a pattern of corporate hypocrisy, where companies may support legislation in the EU while fighting it in Africa, China, and the US.

GreenLatinos condemns the Trump Administration's Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule as a dangerous replacement for the Clean Power Plan. The organization highlights that the ACE rule's regulatory analysis predicted 300 to 1,500 additional deaths annually by 2030 due to increased air pollution. GreenLatinos emphasizes the disproportionate impact on Latinx and African American communities, noting that 40% of Latinos live within 30 miles of a power plant and Latinx children face a 40% higher likelihood of dying from asthma compared to non-Latinx white children.

The Life After Coal campaign, comprising the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), groundWork (gW), and Earthlife Africa (ELA), submitted formal objections on 28 August 2020 against Eskom's applications for alternative emission limits at the Medupi and Matimba power stations. The campaign argues that these requests are an unlawful attempt to circumvent South Africa's Minimum Emission Standards (MES) and violate constitutional rights to a healthy environment.

ClientEarth argues that the German coal phase-out law (KVBG) and its implementing contract provide excessive state aid to lignite operators, specifically LEAG and RWE. The organization claims that the lack of a transparent calculation formula masks overcompensation totaling nearly €2 billion. Furthermore, ClientEarth asserts that using these funds to cover the recultivation of opencast mines violates the polluter pays principle, as such costs are already legal obligations of the mine operators under German mining law.

The Trump administration is accused of rolling back protections for ocean sanctuaries, including the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, to benefit corporate interests like StarKist Tuna. The author asserts that these sanctuaries are essential for climate resiliency, mitigating risks such as rising sea levels, and allowing fish populations to rebuild, which ultimately supports the seafood industry and vulnerable coastal communities.

The author highlights several 2020 court rulings that overturned Trump Administration environmental rollbacks, emphasizing that the U.S. EPA and Bureau of Land Management must prioritize science and public health over industry costs. The text argues these legal wins are critical for protecting marginalized communities, particularly Black and brown people and Tribal lands, from pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), acting as part of the Life After Coal campaign and other environmental justice networks, submitted written objections on July 30, 2020, against Eskom's application for a once-off suspension of compliance with New Plant Minimum Emission Standards (MES) and a variation request for the Grootvlei Power Station. The CER argues that the application is procedurally invalid, lacks a detailed decommissioning schedule, and unlawfully seeks to extend polluting activities beyond the station's end-of-life, thereby violating constitutional rights to a healthy environment.

Natural Justice submitted a series of recommendations to the Kenyan government regarding the Draft Forest Policy 2020. The organization argues that the draft unfairly portrays local communities as the primary drivers of forest degradation while ignoring the impact of multinational corporations and government infrastructure projects. They propose integrating a human-rights based approach, recognizing indigenous land tenure and traditional governance, and ensuring that conservation funding reaches the community level. Additionally, they call for greater transparency in the policy's formulation and the inclusion of independent monitoring to address conflicts of interest within the Kenya Forest Service.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) and other experts contend that the South African government's Supplementary Covid-19 Budget is an austerity measure rather than a rescue package. They argue that the budget provides only R36-billion in new spending—less than 1% of GDP—compared to the promised R500-billion, and may involve cuts between R400-billion and R600-billion over the next few years. The authors claim this approach violates constitutional obligations to socio-economic rights and risks deepening the economic depression, potentially increasing the GDP drop from 10% to over 16%.

The Institute for Economic Justice argues that the South African Supplementary Budget of 24 June 2020 betrays the promised R500 billion COVID-19 rescue package. Instead of the promised amount, the budget provides a net increase to non-interest spending of R36 billion, representing less than 1% of GDP. The document details shortfalls across seven key areas: social security, job protection, health, wage support (TERS), municipal support, tax relief, and the credit guarantee scheme. It highlights that much of the R145 billion targeted for COVID-19 is funded through reprioritisations and the suspension of baseline allocations, while planning a further R230 billion reduction in spending over two years.

The document is a formal recommendation from a group of economists to the South African Parliament to reject the Supplementary Budget tabled on 24 June 2020. The authors argue that the budget contradicts President Ramaphosa's R500 billion rescue package by reducing government expenditure by R230 billion over two years and relying on the reprioritisation of existing funds rather than providing new spending. They highlight significant shortfalls in social security, job protection, and health, while noting dangerous cuts to basic education, higher education, and energy transition programmes. The economists suggest alternative financing methods, such as solidarity taxation and increased borrowing, to prevent a catastrophic economic crisis.

Reclaim Finance argues that Société Générale's updated coal policy is insufficient because it allows continued support for companies developing new coal projects and relies on a vague 25% revenue threshold for restricting services.