Search Climate Insights Directory

This research paper, authored by Rachel Goldwyn and Jason Switzer, critiques existing impact assessment tools used by the extractive industry—specifically Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA), Social Impact Assessments (SIA), and political risk analysis—from a conflict-sensitive perspective. It argues that while these tools are standard, they often fail to identify or mitigate the drivers of violent conflict. The authors propose the development of a Conflict-Sensitive Business Practice (CSBP) toolbox to integrate conflict analysis into the project lifecycle, helping companies minimize their contribution to violence and contribute to peacebuilding.

Amory B. Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) critiques the March 2004 American Physical Society (APS) report "The Hydrogen Initiative," arguing that it reaches erroneous conclusions regarding hydrogen economics and storage due to outdated assumptions and methodological flaws.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and partner organizations critique HR 3005, the Thomas fast track bill, arguing it fails to protect environmental laws and lacks mandatory objectives to ensure sustainable trade and investment.

This document consists of a letter and a subsequent note written by Amory B. Lovins, CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute, addressed to The American Spectator. Lovins refutes claims made by writer William Tucker regarding the causes of the California electricity crisis, specifically challenging Tucker's assertions that Internet growth drove a surge in electricity demand and that the state suffered from a lack of generating capacity.

A statement by Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins critiquing the shift from traditional botany to 'genetic engineering' (transgenics), arguing that the latter prioritizes economic profit and patentability over ecological safety and biological wisdom.

A briefing by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and the Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN) assessing the 'Zero Draft' of the Post-2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (HFA2). The authors argue that while the draft has advanced in areas like the inclusion of vulnerable groups, it fails to provide a cohesive structure and lacks sufficient integration with climate change, conflict, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law analyzes the European Commission's October 2020 "Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability." It evaluates the strategy's potential to create a "toxic-free environment" and provides recommendations for the EU to lead global chemical management by strengthening international standards and eliminating the "double standard" of exporting hazardous substances banned within the EU.

This fact sheet by the Center for International Environmental Law argues that the plastics and petrochemical industry uses "net zero" narratives to greenwash the expansion of plastic production. The document asserts that because plastic is derived from fossil fuels and emits greenhouse gases throughout its entire lifecycle, it is fundamentally incompatible with climate goals, and the only viable solution is to significantly reduce plastic production.

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law analyzes the conflict between international trade policy and environmental protection, arguing that the World Trade Organization (WTO) typically prioritizes trade over the environment. The authors critique the U.S. government for abdicating its leadership in this area and propose a new foreign policy agenda that integrates environmental protection and worker rights into trade agreements, specifically regarding NAFTA and the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

This report by Friends of the Earth International critiques biodiversity offsets and biodiversity certificates (credits), arguing that these market-based mechanisms serve as false solutions that normalize the destruction of nature and undermine the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

A fact sheet by Friends of the Earth International critiquing biodiversity offsets and credits as ineffective and harmful mechanisms for biodiversity protection and financing.

This fact sheet by Friends of the Earth International critiques 'Nature-based Solutions' (NbS) and soil carbon markets, arguing that these concepts are tools for corporate co-optation of environmental and food policies rather than viable solutions for climate change, biodiversity loss, or hunger.

This fact sheet from Friends of the Earth International critiques biodiversity offsets and biocrédits, arguing that these market-based mechanisms often lead to social and environmental harm rather than effective conservation.

This report by Friends of the Earth International critiques the use of "net zero" pledges and carbon offsetting by corporations and governments, arguing that these mechanisms are used to obscure climate inaction and avoid the necessary phase-out of fossil fuels.

A report by Friends of the Earth International and collaborators presented at COP16 in Cali, Colombia, which critiques biodiversity offsetting and crediting as market-based schemes that fail to address the biodiversity crisis and undermine the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

This report by Friends of the Earth International examines how international trade and investment agreements prioritize agro-industrial profits over food sovereignty and environmental health. It argues that these frameworks restrict the ability of states to protect their populations and ecosystems, while advocating for a shift in investment toward small-scale agroecology to combat hunger and climate change.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) declares its institutional opposition to REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), arguing that it commodifies forests, undermines the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and allows industrialized nations to avoid their responsibility to reduce fossil fuel emissions.

This research paper by Lauren Hutton, published by the Institute for Security Studies in February 2015, interrogates the continued relevance of peacebuilding within external interventions in Africa. The author argues that current peacebuilding efforts are often limited because they fail to address the radical restructuring of political and economic power, instead reinforcing existing inequalities and enabling autocratic governance through the building of state institutions that can be used for predation and control.

This fact sheet by the World Resources Institute (WRI) critiques a timeline produced by the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) regarding environmental regulations for power plants. WRI argues that the EEI timeline is misleading because it conflates procedural events and existing rules with new compliance obligations, thereby creating a false impression of a regulatory "onslaught."