Search Climate Insights Directory

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) argues that the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) promotes the 'financierization of nature' by treating forests as financial assets. FoEI criticizes the TFFF's structure for prioritizing private investor returns over conservation, creating a potential debt cycle for Global South countries, and maintaining colonial power asymmetries through the involvement of the World Bank and other international financial institutions. While acknowledging the TFFF's commitment to allocate 20% of payments to Indigenous Peoples and local communities (PICL), FoEI deems this insufficient and calls for a systemic shift toward community-led forest management, debt cancellation, and historical reparations.

Friends of the Earth International opposes the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF), a Brazilian-led initiative designed to mobilize private finance for tropical forest conservation. The organization argues that the TFFF's 'blended finance' model—which prioritizes private investor returns over conservation payments—treats nature as a commodity and risks creating a cycle of debt for tropical forest countries. The paper criticizes the central role of the World Bank and the limited influence of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs), calling instead for debt cancellation, historical reparations, and community-led forest management based on the intrinsic value of ecosystems.

The document positions agroecology as a vital alternative to industrial agriculture, which it identifies as a primary driver of biodiversity loss and climate change. It highlights the role of peasant and indigenous communities in preserving genetic diversity and advocates for a transition toward sustainable, community-led food systems to ensure food sovereignty and ecological stability.

The document warns that reforming the MSR2 before the ETS2 launches in 2027 could lead to an oversupply of allowances, weakening the price signal and jeopardizing the EU's 2030 climate target of a 42% reduction in covered emissions. It argues that high prices should be managed through 'complementary measures'—such as CO2 standards for vehicles and boiler phase-outs—and the strategic use of the Social Climate Fund and €300 billion in ETS2 revenue. The authors contend that existing safeguards, including a 'soft price cap' of approximately €55 per tonne and the early auctioning of 30% more allowances, are sufficient for the initial phase. They caution that any increase in allowance supply must be 'cap neutral' to avoid exceeding the carbon budget.

The statement argues that large-scale forest biomass energy is not carbon neutral and actively harms the climate, biodiversity, and human rights. It claims that current carbon accounting erroneously labels biomass as zero-emission, which masks the actual greenhouse gas releases and encourages deforestation. The document further asserts that biomass energy extends the lifespan of coal plants and diverts investment from truly low-emission renewables like wind and solar. It calls on governments and financial institutions to stop the expansion of the biomass industry and eliminate related subsidies in favor of forest restoration.

The We Mean Business Coalition advocates for the retention of XBRL (eXtensible Business Reporting Language) tagging for financial and non-financial reports, opposing proposals by the European Commission to simplify regulation by removing these requirements. The authors argue that while AI can automate tagging, detect errors, and improve data extraction, it cannot replace XBRL because AI operates probabilistically and lacks the standardization, regulatory compliance, and data integrity required for reliable analysis. The document emphasizes that relying solely on AI-extracted data from PDFs risks inaccuracies in KPIs and figures, which could distort investor analyses and market trust. It concludes that AI should be leveraged to modernize and accelerate the tagging process, but the rule-based structure of XBRL and the associated assurance process by auditors remain essential for traceable and explainable reporting.

Reclaim Finance argues that the Capital Markets Union (CMU), as currently proposed, lacks the necessary environmental criteria to ensure that increased capital volumes support the ecological transition rather than polluting activities. The organization warns that some CMU measures could weaken prudential frameworks and supervisory mandates without considering climate risks. Reclaim Finance proposes that any CMU-related product or label must include strict climate criteria, including the exclusion of fossil fuel developers, and suggests alternative models like citizen-led sustainable project funds to avoid further financialization of the economy.

The document contends that carbon offsetting provides a 'social license' for high-emitting activities to continue and fails to address the root cause of climate change. It highlights systemic quality issues in carbon crediting, such as lack of additionality and non-permanent removals, and argues that the limited supply of high-quality credits cannot meet demand. The authors call for voluntary and regulatory frameworks to exclude offsetting from interim emission reduction targets, citing the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) and UN HLEG recommendations as models for maintaining ambition.

The document critiques the global hydrogen industry, asserting that most production relies on fossil fuels and that even 'green' hydrogen is inefficient and risks perpetuating neocolonial extractivism. It argues that hydrogen serves as a distraction from necessary climate action and a tool for the gas industry to justify new infrastructure. The author calls for the elimination of fossil-fuel-based hydrogen and a transition to community-owned renewable energy and agroecology.

Friends of the Earth International positions hydrogen as a dangerous distraction from real climate action, asserting that most production relies on fossil fuels and that even 'green' hydrogen is inefficient and risks perpetuating neocolonial extractivism. The document critiques various 'colors' of hydrogen, warns against carbon capture and storage (CCS) as an unproven patch, and calls for a systemic shift toward energy sovereignty and community-led renewables instead of industrial hydrogen projects.

The Canadian Climate Institute argues that exemptions to carbon pricing, particularly for home heating in Atlantic Canada, would undermine emission reduction incentives and increase the long-term cost of meeting climate targets. It contends that the existing rebate system already supports low-income households and proposes that any additional affordability needs be met through temporary, targeted rebates rather than policy exemptions that create market uncertainty.

The author contends that carbon markets are unsuitable for incentivising high-quality carbon removals because they favour the cheapest offsetting options over expensive technological solutions. The document criticises the EU's Carbon Removals Certification Framework (CRCF) for being too vague, lacking safeguards against mitigation deterrence, and potentially enabling greenwashing by allowing certified credits to be sold on the voluntary carbon market. It proposes that the EU's 2040 target should be split into three distinct targets—emission reductions, land-based sinks, and technical removals—to prevent the conflation of reductions and removals into a single net target.

The author contends that 'carbon farming' activities are unsuitable for carbon removal certification because they provide temporary, volatile storage that risks enabling greenwashing and delaying actual emission reductions. Instead of market-based carbon credits, the document proposes 'activity-based finance' to support farmers and foresters in adopting nature-based practices, funded by public resources or polluter-pays instruments.

The document opposes the push for new gas infrastructure in Africa, which it describes as a short-term solution for European energy security that risks irreversible climate disaster. It highlights the disproportionate impact of climate change on Africa, the environmental damage caused by gas extraction in Nigeria and Mozambique, and the inadequacy of 'net zero' pledges. The authors call for an immediate end to fossil fuel financing and the implementation of a 100% renewable energy goal for Africa by 2050, funded by climate debt repayments from the Global North.

The authors argue that the European Green Deal is essential for Europe's strategic autonomy from Russia. They warn against short-term fossil fuel measures that create lock-in effects and call for a unified energy strategy focusing on renewables, energy efficiency, and solidarity. The text emphasizes the need for grassroots engagement on energy sufficiency and deeper diplomatic cooperation with the Global South, particularly Africa, to ensure a just and secure green transition.

The We Mean Business Coalition views current corporate net-zero commitments as a global experiment where first-movers must be encouraged to course-correct rather than be deterred by criticism. The Coalition advocates for an 'ambition loop' where voluntary corporate action drives more ambitious government policy, and vice versa. To support this transition, the Coalition highlights the importance of tools like the SBTi Net-Zero Standard and the work of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) to ensure transparency and consistency in reporting.

The document outlines ten principles for the credible implementation of chemical recycling, emphasizing that it must complement rather than replace mechanical recycling and upstream reduction and reuse strategies. It argues that chemical recycling is currently unproven in its environmental performance and warns that it could increase carbon emissions or divert investment from more effective solutions. Key requirements include demonstrating a minimum 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to virgin resin, ensuring no negative impacts on local communities or nature, and restricting the definition of recycling to material-to-material applications, explicitly excluding plastic-to-fuel processes.

The document examines the intersection of gender justice and food sovereignty, arguing that the industrial food system relies on the patriarchal exploitation of women's labor. It advocates for a transition to agroecology and feminist economics to ensure equitable access to land, seeds, and resources, while calling for the recognition and redistribution of unpaid care work.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) rejects Nature-based Solutions (NbS), characterizing the term as a 'wolf in sheep's clothing.' The organization contends that NbS is too vague, allowing harmful practices like industrial monoculture plantations to be labeled as 'natural.' FoEI argues that NbS serves as a greenwashing tool for fossil fuel and agro-industrial companies to justify 'net zero' claims through carbon offsetting rather than actual emission reductions. The document warns that the scale of land required for these projects leads to land grabbing and violates the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, particularly in the Global South. Instead of NbS, FoEI advocates for systemic change through agroecology, community forest management, and a coordinated phase-out of fossil fuels.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) rejects Nature-based Solutions (NbS), characterizing the term as a "wolf in sheep's clothing" that masks neocolonialism and corporate greenwashing. The document contends that NbS promotes industrial monoculture plantations and the financialization of nature, which threatens the land rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities, particularly in the Global South. FoEI argues that NbS serves as a distraction from the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels and instead advocates for systemic changes through agroecology and community forest management.