Search Climate Insights Directory

Erlend Eggen, leader of Klimakultur, criticizes NRK for presenting climate change as a series of observations and consequences—such as melting glaciers and heat records—without linking them to the root cause: fossil energy sources. He contrasts this with NRK's nature loss reporting, which explicitly identifies the political and systemic drivers of environmental destruction. Eggen asserts that by omitting the connection between Norwegian oil and gas production and global climate disasters, NRK's reporting becomes 'directionless' and suggests that the network adopt the standards of 'Covering Climate Now' to ensure both causes and consequences are reported.

Reclaim Finance criticizes the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) for proposing a new protocol that replaces mandatory 1.5°C alignment with a non-binding goal of limiting warming to "well below 2°C, striving for 1.5°C." The document asserts that removing the 1.5°C requirement and the 2050 net zero target is an act of irresponsibility that contradicts UN climate agreements and the IPCC's findings on the necessity of the 1.5°C limit to prevent catastrophic climate impacts. It further argues that the NZBA's justification—that the world is not on track for 1.5°C—is an excuse to avoid the financial sector's responsibility to accelerate the energy transition by reallocating capital from high- to low-polluting activities.

The briefing criticizes the EU's draft methodologies for the Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming Framework (CRCF), specifically regarding the 'mandatory biodiversity co-benefit' criterion. It argues that the results-based approach relies on circular and weak indicators, such as soil organic carbon (SOC), while the activity-based approach incorrectly presumes biodiversity gains without considering farm-specific contexts. The author calls for the adoption of more robust, science-based indicators, a delay in publishing methodologies to align with the Soil Monitoring Law, and the inclusion of a review clause to ensure environmental integrity.

Russia used COP29 to promote fossil fuels and present revised GHG emission data based on a 'sovereign methodology' that claims a 34% reduction in emissions through forest carbon absorption. The document highlights that Russia's 'climate projects' are inconsistent with Paris Agreement standards on additionality and transparency, often serving to prolong fossil fuel use. Despite these issues, Russia has begun selling carbon credits to foreign buyers, such as the Arab Investment Fund, and seeks to expand these practices through BRICS+ and other business associations.

Trase's co-directors criticize proposed EPP amendments to the EUDR, specifically the introduction of a "no risk" country category. They argue that the criteria for this category—such as stable net forest area—are scientifically flawed and could mask significant deforestation, create legal uncertainty regarding WTO rules, and introduce loopholes that undermine the regulation's effectiveness.

The author analyzes 405 articles from The Economist published between January 2022 and July 2023, concluding that the publication's reporting aligns with a 'NATO Narrative' that portrays Russia as the sole aggressor. The analysis finds a heavy reliance on Western official sources and a systematic omission of 'Dissident Discourse' regarding NATO's eastward expansion and U.S. involvement in Ukraine. The document further argues that The Economist functions as part of the Anglo-American ruling elite, historically advocating for military intervention and 'war journalism' over 'peace journalism'.

The policy brief contends that carbon markets are a flawed mechanism that fails to provide real climate finance, instead allowing Global North polluters to avoid direct emission reductions while potentially harming Global South communities.

The document examines the intersection of the climate crisis and the US insurance system, focusing on the aftermath of Hurricane Helene in North Carolina. It highlights a disconnect where insurers seek significant rate hikes—up to 99% in some coastal areas—despite historical profitability, while many homeowners remain uninsured for flood damage. The authors argue that the insurance industry exacerbates the climate crisis by investing over $500 billion in fossil fuel-related assets and underwriting fossil fuel projects, thereby profiting from the drivers of the extreme weather that leads to higher insurance claims.

Reclaim Finance contends that the Capital Markets Union (CMU), as currently proposed, will not solve the EU's climate funding gap. The organization argues that the CMU's broad approach would benefit all sectors, including polluting industries, while simultaneously weakening prudential standards and supervisory mandates. Specifically, the document warns that the increased use of securitization under the CMU could facilitate lending to high-carbon activities and obscure associated risks unless strict 'green' definitions and barriers against fossil fuel financing are implemented.

Reclaim Finance contends that the Capital Markets Union (CMU), while promoted by EU leaders as a solution to the investment gap for the European Green Deal, is not inherently a green finance tool. The organization warns that without targeted safeguards and a clear definition of 'green' securitization, the CMU could stimulate investment in high-carbon activities and undermine financial stability by weakening prudential rules.

The author contends that temporary carbon sequestration, such as carbon farming, is unsuitable for market-based mechanisms because it cannot store CO2 for the century-long timeframe required to meet Paris Agreement goals. The text criticizes the EU's proposed Carbon Removal Certification Framework for failing to exclude offsetting and double counting, while highlighting the technical inaccuracies of current monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) techniques. Instead of 'nature credits', the document proposes rewarding sustainable land management through a reformed Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and a dedicated EU fund for nature restoration.

The document examines the proposed regulatory framework to cap GHG emissions in Canada's oil and gas sector. It argues that existing carbon pricing is insufficient to incentivize decarbonization, as profit margins for production remain higher than those for emissions reductions. While the cap is deemed necessary for Canada to meet its Paris Agreement goals, the author warns that a 25-million-tonne 'compliance flexibility' cushion—comprising a Decarbonization Fund, domestic offsets, and Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (ITMOs)—could dilute the cap's impact by up to 25%. The brief specifically cautions against the use of ITMOs for LNG exports, citing risks of double counting, lack of additionality, and potential fossil fuel subsidies.

Mia Frogner, sustainability lead at Øyafestivalen, critiques the practice of oil sponsorship in Norwegian culture and sports, characterizing it as 'culturewashing' used to legitimize continued fossil fuel production. She argues that such partnerships are incompatible with UN climate goals and may restrict the freedom to critically address the climate crisis within these organizations.

The briefing critiques the G20's "Better, Bolder and Bigger" MDB reform framework, arguing that its focus on leveraging private capital and streamlining processes undermines accountability, ignores debt vulnerabilities in developing nations, and fails to ensure a genuine fossil fuel phaseout. It highlights risks associated with large-scale renewable energy projects and the lack of gender-sensitive policies, urging a shift toward grants-based financing, stronger safeguards, and democratized decision-making.

The EU's Carbon Removals Certification Framework (CRCF) is criticized for failing to mandate 'corresponding adjustments,' allowing both companies and countries to claim the same emissions reductions. This 'double counting' risks displacing necessary climate action and contradicts the EU's own international stance on additionality and the rules of the Paris Agreement's Article 6.

The document outlines the two primary types of carbon markets—cap-and-trade and carbon crediting systems—and distinguishes between compliance markets, which are based on obligatory targets, and voluntary markets used for corporate social responsibility. It highlights the role of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement in establishing new international market mechanisms. The text critically assesses carbon offsetting, particularly REDD+ forestry projects, noting that they often generate exaggerated credits and lack adequate safeguards. It concludes that carbon credits cannot scientifically be proven to reliably neutralise one tonne of CO2 and recommends that companies move toward a 'climate contribution' or 'beyond value chain mitigation' (BVCM) model to provide climate finance without making misleading offsetting claims.

The document evaluates the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), specifically Target 10 and Target 7, in the context of agriculture. It highlights the positive inclusion of agroecology and goals to reduce pesticide pollution by 2030. However, it warns that terms like 'sustainable intensification' and 'innovative approaches' may be used by corporate interests to promote GMOs, synthetic biology, and industrial farming. The author concludes that the GBF lacks specific mandates to restrict harmful agricultural practices and calls on NGOs and movements to use the framework's criteria to challenge corporate claims and advocate for agroecology.

The document evaluates the 2022 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), highlighting a tension between its recognition of human and indigenous rights and its failure to impose binding regulations on transnational corporations. It criticizes the framework for promoting 'sustainable intensification' in agriculture and allowing 'biodiversity offsets,' which the author argues can be used as 'greenwashing' to justify continued environmental destruction. The text provides guidance for civil society and NGOs to use specific GBF targets to pressure governments for better land rights and corporate accountability.

The document evaluates the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), highlighting positive steps toward preventing species extinction and protecting indigenous rights, while warning that the framework's reliance on total area targets and 'Nature-based Solutions' may implicitly permit biodiversity offsetting. It argues that the lack of explicit prohibitions on destructive activities like deep-sea mining and Arctic hydrocarbon extraction allows ecosystem destruction to continue, and encourages civil society to use the GBF's quality and restoration targets to hold governments accountable.

The fact sheet analyzes the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), specifically Targets 4, 15, and 16. It highlights the positive call to integrate biodiversity into all regulatory processes (Target 4) and the goal to reduce negative corporate impacts (Target 15). However, it criticizes the framework for favoring voluntary 'encouragement' over mandatory regulation, relying on corporate self-reporting through platforms like the TNFD, and omitting human rights protections from Target 15. The author urges civil society to use the GBF to challenge inadequate government policies and to advocate for a binding UN Treaty on TNCs and Human Rights.