Search Climate Insights Directory

The author analyzes her role as a special advisor at an applied research institute in Norway to explore the tension between traditional and modern definitions of professionalism. While her position lacks the specialized formal training and self-policing community required by traditional standards, she argues it embodies 'blended' and 'unbounded' professionalism. This 'professional non-profession' is presented as an entrepreneurial response to 'supercomplexity'—the conflicting pressures of maintaining academic quality (Mode 1) while producing socially relevant, applied research (Mode 2).

The document explores the 'humanitarian drone' as a 'war dividend' from military spending, arguing that the transfer of UAV hardware—including surveillance, cargo, and weaponized drones—also transfers military rationales such as 'surgical precision' and 'targeting logic' into the humanitarian sector. The authors warn that the push for humanitarian drones is driven by a commercial logic to gain legitimacy for the UAV industry and may lead to the dehumanization of suffering or a lowered threshold for the use of force through 'humanitarian combat drones.' While drones offer potential for improved aid delivery and crisis mapping, the paper emphasizes that technology is not neutral and cannot replace the empathy and ethical judgment essential to humanitarian work.

The report critiques 'sustainable intensification' as a productivist ideology that prioritizes high-tech solutions—specifically genetically modified (GM) crops and chemical inputs—over agro-ecological practices. It argues that this approach is driven by international donors and agribusinesses, often ignoring the expertise of small farmers and failing to deliver promised yield increases. The document contrasts this model with 'food sovereignty' and the recommendations of the IAASTD report, advocating for a shift toward agro-ecology, land rights, and the reduction of food waste and livestock consumption in the West.

The document argues that the 20072008 global financial crisis was exacerbated by a convergence of power between elite financial circles and government regulators, where deregulation allowed corporations to exploit legal loopholes and offload risks. It contends that technical regulatory reforms are insufficient if they do not address the underlying mindset and values of these power sources. The author suggests that reinforcing fiduciary duty, implementing negative licensing, and ending 'financialization' are potential paths toward reform. Ultimately, the paper proposes that societies should reduce their dependence on the financial sector for the delivery of essential social services and environmental sustainability to mitigate the risks of future systemic failures.

The author argues that first-wave environmentalism failed because it lacked a convincing narrative on economic growth, failed to establish relative urgency against immediate poverty and debt crises, and remained isolated within environmental ministries. He evaluates the High Level Panel on Global Sustainability's report as a successful attempt to address these gaps through recommendations on green jobs, carbon pricing, and private sector engagement. However, he warns that the 'zero draft' for the Rio+20 outcome document remains largely aspirational and risks falling back into the 'environmental trap'.

The report argues that carbon trading is an ineffective and often corrupt mechanism for addressing climate change in Africa. It examines the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and voluntary markets, finding that they frequently favor large industrial polluters over sustainable development and marginalize local communities. Through case studies in South Africa, Uganda, and Ethiopia, the authors illustrate how 'additionality' is often fabricated and how projects can lead to land grabs or the subsidization of fossil fuel expansion. The document concludes that the carbon market is structurally flawed and should be abolished in favor of direct public funding and low-carbon development pathways based on historical responsibility.

The report by Friends of the Earth examines nanotechnology's role in the energy transition, specifically in solar, wind, hydrogen, and battery technologies. It argues that the industry has "over-promised and under-delivered," noting that the energy required to manufacture nanomaterials often exceeds the savings they provide. The document highlights significant health risks, such as the potential for carbon nanotubes to cause mesothelioma, and environmental hazards, including the release of potent greenhouse gases like nitrous oxide from nano silver. It further criticizes the use of public funds to develop nanotechnology for expanded oil and gas extraction and warns that the technology may exacerbate global inequities through restrictive patenting and the dumping of nanowaste in the Global South.

The document examines the 'Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation' (REDD) framework, highlighting how its implementation often prioritizes corporate profit and carbon market volatility over the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Through case studies in countries like Indonesia, Mexico, and Paraguay, it illustrates risks such as 'leakage', the displacement of forest-dependent populations, and the lack of genuine free, prior, and informed consent. The report concludes that REDD should be decoupled from carbon markets and instead focus on reducing demand for agricultural commodities and timber while rewarding those who have historically conserved forests.

The research paper analyzes Germany's engagement with the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) up to July 2009, arguing that both the global mechanism and German state policy prioritize the quantity of Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) over the quality of sustainable development. The author finds that German projects are heavily concentrated in Asia, particularly China and India, and are dominated by large-scale industrial 'end-of-pipe' projects that offer minimal sustainable development benefits. The document concludes that the German government uses the CDM primarily as a tool for economic and export promotion rather than as a means to achieve genuine climate and development goals, thereby 'abusing' the mechanism's original purpose.

The report finds that projections for international greenhouse gas offset supply vary by billions of tons annually, with marginal abatement curve (MAC) based estimates being highly optimistic compared to those based on historical market trends. While gross supply is expected to exceed U.S. demand by 2020, net availability will be constrained by competition from other nations, developing countries' own mitigation commitments, and significant uncertainties in program design and market infrastructure.

The executive summary argues that REDD mechanisms are flawed because they focus on reducing emissions rather than stopping deforestation, potentially rewarding polluters and harming Indigenous Peoples. It warns that funding REDD through carbon offsetting undermines climate mitigation in industrialized nations and risks displacing forest-dependent communities. The author advocates for grant-based funding, the exclusion of plantations from forest definitions, and a rights-based approach to forest conservation.

The report critiques REDD as a flawed approach that focuses on reducing rather than stopping deforestation, potentially rewarding polluters through carbon offsetting. It highlights significant risks to Indigenous Peoples' land rights, the danger of replacing natural forests with carbon-poor plantations, and methodological failures such as 'leakage'. The author argues that market-based funding is volatile and inequitable, suggesting instead that funding should be grant-based, managed by the UN, and focused on addressing the underlying drivers of deforestation.

The author contends that the MDGs provide 'political camouflage' for aid agencies and oversimplify development by targeting visible symptoms like hunger and disease instead of productivity and growth. The paper argues that focusing on universal primary education may divert resources from more commercially valuable technical and vocational training. To address these gaps, the document proposes 'African Millennium Growth Goals' centered on improving commercial infrastructure, investing in rural economies, enhancing technical skills, increasing domestic lending, and reducing bureaucratic corruption.

The paper contends that genetic modification is an imprecise technology that creates unpredictable biological outcomes and potential health hazards, such as new allergens or toxins. It claims GM crops harm biodiversity, contaminate non-GM and organic farms, and result in lower yields and higher costs for farmers. Furthermore, it criticizes the consolidation of the seed market by a few biotechnology companies and the lack of corporate liability for environmental or health damages.

This submission by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) to the Royal Society argues that original analyses of GM food experiments were flawed. SGR's re-examination of a study on glufosinate-resistant maize in chickens found that while average weights were similar to controls, the test group exhibited significantly more erratic weight gains and double the mortality rate. Similarly, a re-analysis of a 14-day study on PAT-protein in rats suggests that animals in high-dose groups failed to thrive, showing lower average weight-gain per day compared to control groups, contradicting the original study's findings of no significant differences.

The report warns that while foreign investment can provide necessary capital for infrastructure and clean production, it often facilitates the transfer of polluting industries from industrialized Western nations to the Third World, Central and Eastern Europe, and the Commonwealth of Independent States. It asserts that international bodies like the World Bank, GATT, and IMF enable this shift, allowing Western corporations to bypass strict home-country environmental standards while increasing the debt and political dependence of recipient nations.

The report examines the CropLife-ECPA proposal for regulatory convergence under TTIP, asserting that the pesticide industry is attempting to use trade negotiations to compel the European Union to abandon its precautionary, hazard-based approach to pesticide regulation in favor of the less stringent risk-assessment model used in the United States. The author argues that this would lead to higher pesticide residues on food, the continued use of endocrine disruptors, and the failure to protect bee populations. Furthermore, the report claims the proposal would restrict public access to safety data and usurp the regulatory authority of US states and EU Member States to implement stronger local protections.

The report contends that carbon offsets in agriculture fail to reduce absolute emissions due to measurement uncertainties, lack of permanence, and issues with additionality. It highlights how these schemes often benefit agribusinesses while undermining food security, increasing land financialization, and locking in industrial farming models. The authors recommend excluding the land sector from international carbon markets under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement and redirecting finance toward agroecological practices.

The fact sheet contrasts agroecology with 'nature based solutions' (NBS), asserting that NBS serves as a tool for agribusinesses and the finance sector to commodify nature and carbon. It claims that NBS focuses on narrow carbon sequestration metrics and specific practices like no-till farming to preserve corporate control, whereas agroecology seeks systemic change, food sovereignty, and land redistribution. The document warns that NBS integrates nature into corporate profit chains and provides carbon credits that allow fossil fuel corporations to pursue 'net zero' instead of real zero emissions.

The document argues that post-conflict recovery requires a shift from short-term humanitarian relief to a sustainable livelihoods approach that addresses the root causes of conflict, such as poverty, powerlessness, and the loss of assets. It examines the 'deadly triad' of food insecurity, HIV/AIDS, and conflict, and provides frameworks for analyzing household vulnerability and the political economy of war. Case studies from Angola, Sudan, Mozambique, and Uganda illustrate the importance of integrating emergency relief with long-term developmental support, particularly for internally displaced persons (IDPs) and the urban poor.