Search Climate Insights Directory

Reclaim Finance argues that nuclear energy should be excluded from the European taxonomy because it fails to meet sustainability goals regarding waste management, pollution, and biodiversity. The document claims that nuclear power can hinder the deployment of renewable energy and that the taxonomy is a transparency tool rather than a mechanism that prevents state-funded nuclear investment.

The authors argue that the EU's current GMO legislation is fit for purpose and that attempts by the agrifood industry to deregulate 'new breeding techniques' undermine the precautionary principle. They contend that genetic engineering does not solve hunger or environmental crises, suggesting instead that resources should be redirected toward agroecology and the development of resilient, low-input conventional breeds.

The document asserts that carbon border taxes must be contingent on the removal of free pollution permits under the EU ETS to avoid double-protecting industry and to provide a real incentive for emissions reductions. It argues that carbon leakage is not evidenced and that free allocations have historically functioned as subsidies. The author suggests that border measures should be temporary, non-protectionist, and complementary to global climate policies, while advocating for the use of enforceable environmental chapters in trade agreements to drive global ambition.

The statement asserts that climate change will intensify hardships for African communities, leading to increased climate migration and potential xenophobic sentiment. It specifically highlights that climate-driven stress is likely to fuel intra-family conflict and gender-based violence, particularly affecting women in South Africa.

The document criticizes the veto by Poland, the Czech Republic, Estonia, and Hungary against the EU's long-term climate strategy, arguing that such political obstruction harms businesses by removing investment certainty. It highlights that energy-intensive industries—specifically steel, cement, and chemicals—account for approximately 40% of greenhouse gas emissions under the EU emissions trading system and have seen no decrease in pollution since 2012. The author asserts that a formal commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050 is essential to signal a clear decarbonisation path, enable the development of financial frameworks, and inform the EU 2030 industrial strategy.

A joint position paper by NGOs urging EU legislators to reform the post-2020 European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). The authors argue that the fund should shift from financing direct economic activity and capacity-increasing subsidies toward a results-based approach that prioritizes marine biodiversity, strict fisheries control, and a sustainable blue economy.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment states that hydraulic fracturing is linked to severe health issues, including birth defects, childhood leukemia, and respiratory problems, while also causing groundwater contamination and increased seismic activity. The organization highlights that methane emissions from the industry negate its benefits and exacerbate global warming. Consequently, it recommends a complete ban on new hydraulic fracturing projects and a halt to all fossil fuel exploration and extraction in Quebec.

The document asserts that the Paris Agreement is a universal and flexible framework essential for stabilizing global temperature increases below 2°C. It characterizes the U.S. decision to withdraw as an "historical mistake" that could increase future global temperature rises by up to 0.3°C and isolate the U.S. internationally. However, the authors note that a "domino effect" of other nations withdrawing has not occurred, as key players like China, the European Union, and India remain committed. The text highlights that the transition to clean energy is driven by economic opportunity, noting support from major U.S. companies, the divestment from coal by Blackrock, and the competitiveness of renewables, exemplified by subsidy-free auctions in Spain. Internal U.S. opposition is also noted, specifically from the governors of California, New York, and Washington.

The document opposes using carbon markets to promote climate-smart agriculture, citing the risk of impermanence in soil and forest carbon sequestration compared to permanent fossil fuel emissions. It highlights that land use accounts for 24% of global emissions and suggests that finance for these activities should be mobilized through non-market mechanisms like Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) to avoid compromising food security and adaptation.

The document critiques the process of 'financialization of nature,' which it describes as the reduction of natural elements into exchangeable financial instruments. It argues that pricing biodiversity is a prerequisite for this process, leading to the creation of 'natural capital' and market-based mechanisms like biodiversity banks and green bonds. The author contends that these tools, particularly those based on 'offsetting,' allow corporations to continue destructive activities by purchasing credits, thereby bypassing genuine conservation and violating the rights of traditional land defenders. The paper advocates for community-based governance and food sovereignty as alternatives to neoliberal market logic.

The authors contend that seabed mining poses multi-pronged threats to the equilibrium of the marine realm, specifically risking the benthic communities that underpin fisheries and the phytoplankton responsible for CO2 absorption. They argue that the pursuit of minerals should not come at the expense of renewable food resources or existing economic activities. The text highlights skepticism toward foreign mining companies in Namibia and South Africa, noting that such companies often seek to operate in these regions after being denied permits in countries like Australia and New Zealand. The authors call for rigorous, open quantification of mining scopes and the application of the precautionary principle to avoid enormous environmental and socio-economic implications.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) argues that current proposed fracking regulations in South Africa are inadequate because they rely on industry standards and are housed under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) rather than comprehensive environmental laws. The document advocates for a regulatory regime based on the Constitution and the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), calling for a specialised inter-departmental unit to oversee authorisations and enforcement. Key recommendations include mandatory baseline environmental measurements, public disclosure of fracking fluid chemicals, a prohibition on using potable water, and the implementation of 'green completions' to eliminate gas venting and flaring. The CER emphasizes that fracking should only be permitted if it can be proven to contribute to sustainable development without causing irreparable harm to water resources or disadvantaged communities.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) opposes the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) system, whether market-based or publicly funded. FoEI argues that REDD treats forests as mere carbon stocks, which ignores their social and cultural value and creates perverse incentives for deforestation. The document highlights risks such as the criminalization of traditional forest management, the displacement of communities, and the failure of carbon offsets to permanently reduce emissions. Instead of financial incentives, FoEI proposes strengthening the land rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, supporting collective forest management, and demanding that industrialized nations reduce fossil fuel emissions without relying on offsets.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) argues that REDD schemes, whether market-based or publicly funded, fail to address the root causes of climate change and risk harming the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. FoEI contends that REDD commodifies forests, reduces them to 'carbon stocks', and creates perverse incentives for deforestation while enabling industrialized nations to avoid direct emission reductions through offsets. The organization advocates for the recognition of communal land rights and the empowerment of forest-dependent populations as the only effective means of forest conservation.

Carbon Market Watch opposes a pilot phase for the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA), arguing that the lack of established rules on environmental integrity and accounting makes such a phase premature. The organization warns that recognizing "early action" from a pilot could undermine future post-2020 climate regime negotiations and set a dangerous precedent for low-quality market units. It suggests that the FVA process should instead be used to define rigorous standards for real, permanent, and additional mitigation and to resolve double-counting issues, particularly those seen in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The statement emphasizes the importance of the People's Summit in Rio de Janeiro as a space for grassroots activism and solidarity among those impacted by climate, financial, and food crises. It argues that sustainability is found in solidarity and the implementation of diverse, non-patented solutions rather than in official state-led negotiations. The text highlights the need to protect local environments from corporate pollution, citing oil spill damage in Mage, and calls for the removal of corporate influence from political structures.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) submits that the UK faces no current military threats justifying the replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons system. The organization argues that maintaining nuclear weapons contradicts the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and that the financial and technical resources required for a successor should instead be redirected toward mitigating climate change and developing a low-carbon economy. SGR further contends that the science and engineering skills needed for Trident replacement are in short supply and would be more beneficially deployed in sectors such as renewable energy, specifically offshore wind, wave, and tidal projects.

Friends of the Earth International opposes the continuation of GATS negotiations, asserting that the agreement grants transnational corporations excessive rights at the expense of national environmental and social policies. The document highlights how GATS limits the right of governments to legislate, particularly regarding essential public services and natural resource management. It specifically warns that expanding GATS into energy, water, and tourism sectors could lead to irreversible ecological damage and the forced privatization of basic human needs. The organization demands the exclusion of public services and extractive industries from GATS disciplines and the implementation of strong environmental exemptions.

Friends of the Earth International opposes the proposal to include investment rules in the WTO, particularly ahead of the 2003 Cancun Ministerial Conference. The organization argues that investment agreements, such as the failed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) and NAFTA's Chapter 11, undermine the ability of governments to implement environmental and social policies. It claims there is no empirical evidence that foreign direct investment leads to equitable development and urges the WTO to reject 'procedural modalities' for investment talks and reform existing rules like GATS and TRIMS that already restrict national policy space.

The Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) oppose the commercial release of GM crops in the UK and the introduction of new GM foods to the market. They argue that potential impacts on consumer health and the environment have not been sufficiently investigated and that safety data from the United States is not applicable to the UK's environment. SGR advocates for a minimum five-year moratorium on new GM foods, mandatory labelling of GM ingredients, and a transparent investigation into the influence of international biotechnology companies on the food chain and the ethics of patenting gene lines from developing nations.