Search Climate Insights Directory

The author critiques the field of climate communication for being dominated by Global North institutions and research, which often fails to account for the realities of the Global South, such as limited connectivity and the value of traditional ecological knowledge. The text advocates for a 'bottom-up' approach that treats communication as a right and supports local media ecosystems as essential 'climate stability infrastructure.' Examples of successful community-led communication are highlighted in Ecuador, Colombia, and Brazil, alongside a call for the implementation of the Escazú Agreement and increased funding for local voices.

The document criticizes a proposal by the Trump EPA to roll back protections in the coal combustion residuals (CCR) rule, asserting that these changes—which align with requests from industry groups like the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG)—will allow power companies to avoid cleanup obligations and increase toxic contamination risks for nearby communities.

The Clean Air Task Force disputes industry claims, specifically a Wood MacKenzie study commissioned by the IOGP, that the EU Methane Regulation will disrupt oil and gas supplies. The author asserts that the regulation focuses on measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) rather than import bans or strict molecule tracing. The document argues that producers are unlikely to abandon the European market due to strong commercial incentives and the low cost of methane abatement. Furthermore, it claims that the regulation's phased timeline allows for market adjustment and that increased transparency can actually enhance energy security by reducing wasteful gas losses.

The author argues that the IPBES Assessment on Businesses and Biodiversity relies on the flawed assumption that companies lack awareness of their environmental impacts. The text asserts that biodiversity destruction remains profitable, leading companies to lobby against regulations. It highlights the failure of voluntary corporate actions, noting that less than 1% of reporting companies significantly disclose biodiversity impacts. The author rejects market-based instruments like biodiversity credits and certifications as 'false solutions' and 'greenwashing,' calling instead for binding international norms and strict limits on corporate impacts to prevent ecological collapse.

Reclaim Finance argues that the Fonds de réserve pour les retraites (FRR) continues to use public money to support fossil fuel expansion despite updating its exclusion policy. The FRR's new measures only target unconventional hydrocarbons and thermal coal, leaving conventional oil and gas investments intact. The document also highlights the FRR's failure to implement science-based criteria for selecting asset managers, noting that it continues to work with firms like BlackRock despite their climate records.

The authors argue that the UN climate process is outdated and allows powerful countries and polluting industries to block ambition. They propose four key reforms: implementing majority voting when consensus fails, enforcing strict conflict-of-interest rules to exclude fossil fuel lobbyists, establishing meaningful accountability and compliance mechanisms for state commitments, and guaranteeing human rights and transparency in negotiations.

The statement calls for COP30 in Belem to establish an action plan for a just transition to 100% renewable energy, specifically targeting the reform of multilateral development banks (MDBs). It argues that current MDB models prioritise private profit and increase debt in the Global South, citing examples of harmful green hydrogen and hydropower projects. The authors propose three shifts: an immediate end to fossil fuel and 'false solution' finance, the provision of grants instead of debt-creating instruments, and a move toward small-scale, community-owned renewable energy projects to ensure energy sovereignty.

The report contends that using carbon credits to close coal plants replicates past failures of offsetting mechanisms, which often generate fictitious credits and allow polluters to continue operating. It argues that the primary goal of these markets is the exchange of credits rather than actual emission reductions. Instead of using offsets to buy out investors, the document recommends ending financial services for new coal projects, removing barriers to sustainable energy deployment, avoiding full public indemnification of stranded assets, and implementing sector-wide coordinated coal exits.

The author contends that the EU's CRCF framework relies on unscientific methodologies and lacks social safeguards, potentially fueling 'green-grabbing' and land inequality. The document further criticizes the proposed next phase of the CAP for lacking a ringfenced budget for environmental action and granting member states too much autonomy, which may lead to a 'race to the bottom' regarding environmental safeguards. It concludes that carbon and nature credits are unsuitable tools for ensuring a fair standard of living for farmers.

The policy brief analyzes a June 2025 non-paper from 16 EU member states seeking reforms to the ETS2, the emissions trading system for buildings and road transport. The authors argue that while some suggestions—such as publishing more data and starting auctions early—are low-risk, proposals to modify the MSR2 trigger mechanisms, extend its lifetime beyond 2031, or strengthen price controls would increase the total volume of allowances in the market. Because MSR2 allowances are already additional to the emissions cap, the brief contends that these reforms would lead to higher greenhouse gas emissions, weaken the investment signal for decarbonization, and potentially jeopardize the EU's overall climate goals.

Erlend Eggen, head of Klimakultur, criticizes the Arctic Race of Norway for its reliance on fossil fuel sponsorship, specifically Equinor, and the participation of the Israel Premier Tech team. He argues that the event's sustainability claims, such as using an electric car fleet, are undermined by the fact that Equinor's energy production remains over 99.6% fossil-based. The text highlights the role of cycling as a venue for corporate greenwashing and calls for the event to sign 'The Fossil Free Declaration' to phase out high-carbon partnerships.

Carbon Market Watch criticizes proposals to compensate EU exporters under the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), arguing that the actual competitiveness risk is limited and that subsidies would reward polluters. The author contends that CBAM revenue should not be used to subsidize EU producers, as this could conflict with WTO rules and encourage the export of polluting products. Instead, the document advocates for targeted financial support for clean technology innovation and the global expansion of carbon pricing.

Carbon Market Watch (CMW) opposes the UK government's proposed reliance on market-based mechanisms and the VCMI Scope 3 Action Code of Practice, arguing that allowing carbon credits to 'close scope 3 emissions gaps' effectively legitimises offsetting and risks rewarding 'climate laggards'. CMW advocates for a 'contribution' or 'beyond value chain mitigation' (BVCM) model over offsetting and insetting, and suggests that the UK's Environmental Reporting Guidelines (ERG) should mandate, rather than encourage, the disclosure of carbon credit information. The document also recommends 'temperature-alignment claims' (specifically referencing 1.5°C) as a more precise alternative to 'Paris alignment' claims.

The European Commission's proposed net 90% emissions reduction target for 2040 is criticized by Carbon Market Watch for being inadequate and lacking accountability. The analysis highlights risks associated with the potential use of international carbon credits, the absence of separate targets for gross emissions and removals, and the proposed integration of permanent removals into the EU ETS, which may create loopholes for polluters.

Reclaim Finance disputes claims by Banque Populaire Caisse d’Epargne (BPCE) that it is reducing fossil fuel financing, asserting that BPCE's reporting excludes critical activities like gas liquefaction and bond underwriting. The document argues that BPCE's renewable energy targets are insufficient for a 1.5°C pathway and that the bank applies a double standard by aggregating financing types when reporting renewable investments but rejecting the same method for fossil fuel reporting.

The Petroganda Prize 2025 long list identifies various entities and campaigns in Norway that the publisher, Klimakultur, views as 'petroganda'. The document categorizes these nominees into eight areas: children and youth education, sports, folk festivals, campaigns, media and public debate, research, arts and culture, and health and humanitarian work. It specifically highlights how companies like Equinor, Vår Energi, Aker BP, and Gassco sponsor science centers, sports teams, and art festivals to create a narrative of being 'part of the solution' to the climate crisis. The document argues that these partnerships allow the fossil fuel industry to influence young people and the public, effectively masking the environmental and health damages caused by oil and gas production.

The Institute for Energy Economics Japan (IEEJ) produces energy forecasts with significantly higher gas demand and carbon emissions than those of the IEA, ExxonMobil, and BP. This is driven by higher projected costs for solar and wind, a preference for thermal power as a backup to renewables, and optimistic forecasts for carbon capture and storage (CCS) deployment. The IEEJ maintains close ties to the Japanese government and industry, while Japan remains a major global financier and trader of gas.

South Africa has committed to an ambitious plan of action to prevent and respond to violence against children by 2027, including implementing parenting programmes in 52 districts and strengthening school safety via the 2024 Basic Education Laws Amendment Act. However, the authors contend that these goals are jeopardized by the Social Development Department's failure to pay NGO service providers in provinces like Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal, as well as a lack of operational competence and clean audits at the national level. The document emphasizes that because NGOs deliver most services, the state must implement the Sector Funding Policy and adopt a holistic approach to family services to succeed.

The IMO's new Net-Zero Framework is criticized as a 'defeat for the climate' because it replaces a universal carbon levy with a hybrid fuel standard and weak carbon pricing. The author contends that the scheme will only reduce emissions by about 10% by 2030—half of the IMO's own base target—and will generate insufficient revenue ($11-12 billion annually) to support the transition to zero-emission fuels, which requires $12-24 billion per year.

The Global Digital Justice Forum, a coalition of civil society organizations from the Global Majority, argues that the 'Broligarchy'—Silicon Valley firms and US government leadership—has weaponized data and AI, leading to human rights abuses, ecological injustice, and the exclusion of 2.5 billion people from digital benefits. The coalition demands a transition to 'global digital constitutionalism' where digital infrastructures are treated as commons rather than commodities, urging governments to curb corporate monopolies and protect the rights of nature.