Search Climate Insights Directory

The report reveals that the Philippines' push to become a leading exporter of transition minerals, such as nickel and copper, is causing significant land loss for Indigenous Peoples and the destruction of critical biodiversity hotspots. It highlights a pattern of state-driven violence, where the military is identified as the primary perpetrator of killings and detentions of land defenders. The document argues that the global shift to renewable energy is fueling a 'green mineral rush' that relies on 'red-tagging' activists and militarising infrastructure, particularly in Mindanao, to facilitate extractive projects.

Global Witness calls for the removal of fossil fuel industry influence from the COP process, citing conflicts of interest and the industry's role in the climate crisis. The organization highlights instances of fossil fuel lobbyists and petrostate officials leveraging their positions at COP29 and previous summits to broker oil and gas deals, arguing that such influence undermines the diplomatic efforts required to transition away from fossil fuels.

Global Witness argues that UNEA-6 missed a critical opportunity to regulate the mining industry for the energy transition. While a digital knowledge hub for environmental protection was established, the final resolution removed mandates for assessing regulations, tackling human rights violations, and addressing colonial extraction patterns due to resistance from several Member States. The document also highlights a lack of action on resource overconsumption by wealthy nations and calls for the UN and upcoming COP meetings in Azerbaijan and Brazil to prioritize a just energy transition and Indigenous rights.

Global Witness and CLARA criticize the VCMI's Provisional Claims Code of Practice, arguing it enables greenwashing and ignores the scientific reality that avoided emissions cannot balance current emissions. They contend that the voluntary carbon market facilitates the appropriation of lands in the global South by the global North and distracts from the mandatory decarbonization and consumption reductions necessary to meet the 1.5C Paris Agreement target.

The fact sheet advocates for agroecology as a holistic approach to building climate-resilient and just food systems in South Africa. It contrasts agroecology—which integrates traditional knowledge and ecological science to empower small-scale producers—with 'false solutions' such as GMOs and climate-smart agriculture (CSA) that it claims reinforce industrial control and inequality. The document outlines how agroecology enhances resilience through local production, biodiversity, and soil health, and aligns these goals with the 13 HLPE principles for food system transformation.

The document examines the link between poverty, human insecurity, and conflict in sub-Saharan Africa. It argues that the 'security first' approach of international donors is flawed because it focuses on state security while ignoring the structural economic collapse caused by neo-liberal structural adjustment programmes and unsustainable debt. The author describes 'new wars' in Africa as rational economic responses to exclusion, where warlords utilize global markets for lootable commodities. The paper advocates for a shift toward 'human security' and a significant increase in official development assistance (ODA) to meet Millennium Development Goals, warning that current donor strategies continue to prioritize market liberalization over genuine poverty alleviation.

The author critiques the mainstream definition of organised crime, which often views it as a structured, culturally homogenous conspiracy. The paper introduces four models of criminal coordination—hierarchy, networks, markets, and clans—and argues that real-world criminal entities are often hybrids of these. It specifically examines the application of these views in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region and suggests that the term 'illicit enterprise' better captures the continuum between legal and illegal business activities.

Natural Justice challenges the Basic Assessment Reports (BARs) for four prospecting projects in South Africa's West Coast region, citing 'fatal flaws' in biodiversity and water supply assessments. The organization argues that the reports ignore climate change commitments, fail to meaningfully consult vulnerable groups like the Guriqua communities, and overlook the potential destruction of sacred cultural sites and the impact on the region's primary agricultural and fishing sectors.

A statement submitted on 13 December 2024 by a coalition of civil society organizations, including Natural Justice and SAFCEI, providing critical comments on South Africa's Draft Article 6 Framework. The coalition argues that carbon markets are fundamentally flawed and risk enabling human rights abuses, land grabs, and the evasion of actual emission reductions.

The document outlines a proposal by TotalEnergies, Shell, and PetroSA to drill up to five exploration wells in Block 5/6/7 off the coast of the Western Cape, South Africa. It argues that the project is unnecessary for energy security, contradicts South Africa's climate commitments to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, and poses significant risks to marine biodiversity and local industries like fishing and tourism. The text also highlights the poor environmental and ethical track records of TotalEnergies and Shell in other African nations.

The author contends that the Public Procurement Bill is constitutionally deficient because it grants procuring institutions broad, open-ended powers for preferential procurement without the 'framework' required by Section 217 of the constitution. The text argues that without specific guardrails to guide and limit these powers, the bill risks perpetuating inefficiency and corruption in a system that handles a fifth of South Africa's GDP. The author recommends that the bill be amended to explicitly instruct the minister of finance to elaborate a detailed framework to ensure legality and economic productivity.

The report examines how private equity firms profit from the U.S. education market, which was estimated at $1.1 trillion in 2020. It details the consolidation of curriculum and testing services by firms like Veritas Capital, the rise of outsourced staffing through companies like Education Solutions Services, and the risks associated with student data management by firms such as Vista Equity Partners. The document also analyzes the negative outcomes associated with private equity-owned for-profit colleges, charter schools, and early childhood education centers, arguing that a profit-driven model often conflicts with student interests and public good.

The Institute for Policy Integrity, alongside several environmental organizations, argues that the U.S. Forest Service's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the West Elk coal mine expansion is deficient because it does not monetize greenhouse gas emissions using the social cost of carbon and methane. The authors contend that since the Forest Service used a cost-benefit analysis to list federal revenue increases, it is required to monetize climate damages using the best available data, especially as the expansion could represent "1.67% of all federal coal produced nationally".

The author critiques the 2016 Arbitral Tribunal's interpretation of Article 121(3) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which determined that high-tide features in the Spratly Islands are 'rocks' incapable of sustaining human habitation or economic life and thus cannot generate an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) or continental shelf. The author contends that the Tribunal overlooked significant State practice where countries like Australia, France, Japan, New Zealand, and the United States claim 200-nm EEZs for similarly remote, uninhabited features. The paper suggests that if the Tribunal had comprehensively examined these practices and bilateral agreements, it might have reached a different conclusion. Furthermore, it highlights a 'double standard' where these five nations urge China and the Philippines to abide by the Award while continuing their own inconsistent claims.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Amundi for voting in favor of TotalEnergies' 'Say On Climate' plan despite its failure to align capital expenditures (CAPEX) with a 1.5°C trajectory. The letter highlights inconsistencies in Amundi's voting patterns across seven oil and gas majors, noting that Amundi approved plans for Repsol, TotalEnergies, and BP while rejecting those of Woodside Petroleum, Shell, and Equinor. Reclaim Finance argues that Amundi's current approach ignores the IEA Net Zero scenario, which mandates no new oil and gas fields, and calls for a systematized engagement policy that includes commitments to divest from companies continuing fossil fuel expansion.

Reclaim Finance critiques the ACPR's climate pilot exercise, warning that the exclusion of solvency requirements, the use of a dynamic balance sheet, and the focus on extreme weather events over chronic risks may artificially reduce measured climate risks. The organization recommends including the year 2030 in projections, expanding the geographic scope beyond France, Europe, and the US, and conducting a more granular analysis of the fossil fuel sector.

The fact sheet argues that many climate scenarios used by financial actors act as 'greenwashing tools' by underestimating renewable energy, relying on unlikely negative emissions technologies, and omitting significant portions of global greenhouse gas emissions. It asserts that these scenarios often lead to warming exceeding 1.5°C and calls for a complete phase-out of fossil fuel financing by 2040 in Europe and 2050 globally.

The document argues that many climate scenarios used by financial actors and large companies serve as tools for greenwashing by underestimating renewable energy and relying on improbable negative emissions to justify continued fossil fuel investment.

The author describes the U.S. nuclear power industry as the "greatest collapse of any enterprise in industrial history," attributing this failure to a combination of institutional hubris, skewed economic data, and a federal policy focus on hardware over energy efficiency. The text details how the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the Department of Energy (DOE) promoted myths regarding the cost-competitiveness of nuclear power compared to coal and ignored the potential of energy productivity improvements. It further examines the failure of the breeder reactor and reprocessing programs, arguing that the federal government continues to subsidize an uncompetitive technology while ignoring cheaper, more efficient alternatives.

The report distinguishes between 'growth' (increase in size) and 'development' (increase in quality), arguing that rapid community expansion often leads to higher taxes and degraded public services. It identifies a 'growth subsidy' where existing taxpayers fund infrastructure for newcomers, creating a cycle of dependency on further expansion. The authors propose sustainable development alternatives, such as import replacement and energy efficiency, to build local wealth without increasing community size.